Responding to a somewhat intemperate remark by Rick Santorum, Arizona State University’s Lawrence M. Krauss tells us “why we need college degrees more than we need faith.”
I could quarrel with him on many grounds, but I’ll focus on this paragraph:
An educated workforce, especially in areas of science and engineering, is the key to economic health in the 21st century, and an informed populace is the basis of a healthy democracy. If it is true that education tends to reduce religious faith then we have to decide which is ultimately more valuable.
He has argued that “those who are more educated have a greater tendency to question their religious faith,” apparently because they have learned “to question pre-conceived notions and to base conclusions on evidence,” which are important abilities in a 21st century economy and democracy. I agree with these propositions, though with an important caveat. I think that one of the principal purposes of higher education is to help students cultivate the ability to think critically and carefully, to understand what can be established rationally and empirically, and what cannot. In this little essay, Professor Krauss hasn’t convinced me that he’s learned the latter lesson.
As for what can be established empirically, while it’s probably true that a preponderance of Ph.D.-level scientists are not orthodox believers, what about those–beginning with John Polkinghorne, moving through the many science faculty at religiously-affiliated colleges and universities, and descending even to the highly trained engineers, computer scientists, and doctors with whom I’ve worshipped over the years–who seem to find a way of reconciling more or less orthodox Christian faith with high octane science education? To be sure, Professor Krauss writes with some care about “tendencies,” but perhaps the interesting question he doesn’t address is why some experience the training, but don’t share in the tendency. What makes them different? Their intelligence (or lack theerof)? Some psychological need that their colleagues don’t share? Or perhaps a different–and yet reasonable–assessment of the nature of the evidence or the considerations one must bring to bear in judging it?
Professor Krauss displays a great–and to my mind unfounded–confidence in the efficacy of enlightenment. Yes, an informed populace is important for a healthy democracy, but it’s hardly the only or a sufficient requisite. (Perhaps I should say to him that I’ll refrain from making authoritative public commentary about his area of expertise if he’ll stop making pronouncements in mine.) At the very least, good citizenship requires character as well as knowledge, and one of the principal and often effective buttresses of civic character is religion. Yes, there are sinners in the pews, but at least they’re told that their bad behavior is a sin, rather than just a choice. And yes, there are decent non-believers. But the consensus in the history of political philsoophy and statesmanship is that republican civic virtue requires a religious foundation.
And even if higher education is often effective in weakening religious faith, there’s little evidence that it does a good job passing along the kind of knowledge that makes for an informed citizenry.
Finally, there’s a word that Professor Krauss uses rather loosely: “If it is true that education tends to reduce religious faith then we have to decide which is ultimately more valuable.” I might be brought to concede that even Kant’s nation of devils–willing to work hard 24/7 and focused entirely on dying with the most toys–might have a higher gross domestic product than a nation of pious believers who take a day of rest and don’t spend their money in such a way as to maximize their return. But that word “ultimate” sticks in my craw.
If Professor Krauss thinks that science can tell us what’s ‘ultimately” important, then he’s in for an argument in which neither he, nor I, nor any other human being can have the final word.
March 1st, 2012 | 2:35 pm
Aside from all the grammatical mistakes in the article you cite, I’m surprised at how many cheap shots and poor arguments he makes.
For example, who says we value “blind” religious faith? And who says the members of the National Academy of Sciences haven’t been indoctrinated into liberal ideas?
March 1st, 2012 | 3:11 pm
“I think that one of the principal purposes of higher education is to help students cultivate the ability to think critically and carefully, to understand what can be established rationally and empirically, and what cannot. ”
The question is then, why should we have beliefs on what cannot be established rationally and empiricaly (note that is not simply empirically, so this is not some naive positivism)? Or more precisly, why what can´t be established rationally or empirically should have effects or be predominant in the paths societies take?
March 1st, 2012 | 3:18 pm
What is surprising to me is how “blind” he is to the dignity and worth of auto mechanics, store clerks, plumbers, electricians, and the like. Not everyone wants to sit on their behinds thinking worthless thoughts like too many of academia are prone to do…
March 1st, 2012 | 3:29 pm
Sergio Mendez,
“The question is then, why should we have beliefs on what cannot be established rationally and empiricaly (note that is not simply empirically, so this is not some naive positivism)? Or more precisly, why what can´t be established rationally or empirically should have effects or be predominant in the paths societies take?”
You mean things like love, child rearing and appreciation for art and music? I know you qualify your definition of empiricism (not some naive positivism), but even given that qualification – purely rational and empirical foundations for beliefs (while not unimportant) are insufficient. There are places that kind of inquiry just can’t go. Your definition sounds Gradgrindian.
March 1st, 2012 | 5:06 pm
I lost my faith after becoming exposed to the secular left’s “education”.
Then I regained it after I realized the secular left is offering its own faith-based beliefs – with faith just as blind and far more flawed.
They taught me that the Christian worldview is flawed and silly. I eventually found on my own that their own worldview is far more steeped in real cognitive dissonance than the Christian one. The trick is to look at all the things the secular worldview refuses to acknowledge – the ultimate mysteries of the universe are dealt with in the Christian worldview through explanations that admittedly do tend to sound silly*, while those same mysteries are dealt with by humanism with a careful tactic of refusing to see or acknowledge anything that can’t be answered.
-
*interestingly, there are many great things that sound silly or trivial or both when they are reduced to summaries. I think it may even be true that the closer a thing comes to the mysteries of the universe – and the more power it has to capture something of how those mysteries are – the more likely it is going to be to sound silly when paraphrased?
March 1st, 2012 | 5:08 pm
Didn’t the Murray book recently published about the differences between Belmont and Fishtown indicate that well-educated people tend to practice religion more faithfully?
March 1st, 2012 | 5:13 pm
“I think that one of the principal purposes of higher education is to help students cultivate the ability to think critically and carefully, to understand what can be established rationally and empirically, and what cannot. ”
The question is then, why should we have beliefs on what cannot be established rationally and empiricaly (note that is not simply empirically, so this is not some naive positivism)?
Because there are some things that cannot be established rationally and empirically.
There are some things that we simply do not have the sort of data required for that sort of thinking.
It is pure faith on your part to suppose that the humanist approach to that stuff is any less faith-based.
You cannot even rationally prove the superiority of the humanist way of tackling situations involving inadequate data. The humanist argument ends up boiling down to something like, “X is better in situation Y, so therefore X will be better in situation Z as well” – with the problem being that Y and Z are not equal.
March 1st, 2012 | 5:22 pm
Responding to a somewhat intemperate remark by Rick Santorum . . .
Santorum’s comments on Obama’s promotion of higher education were not intemperate. They were calculated, wrongheaded, and malicious.
What Obama really said:
This is not a snobby statement that everyone must go to college or be considered inferior. It is a realistic statement that a high-school diploma is absolutely critical, and further education, be it in college, or in vocational or technical school, or in apprenticeship to learn a trade, is very important.
March 1st, 2012 | 7:58 pm
krauss has also recently discovered — empirically! — that “nothing” is a scientific concept. (see NPR) yikes. this sort of scientistic hubris is so extravagant that it borders on the comical.
March 1st, 2012 | 8:29 pm
Like you I frequently encounter well educated scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. who hold traditional religious belefs.
I also read the writings of many arrogant, highly educated atheists who, frankly, haven’t thought careefully on the topics upon which they pontificate. I include in this group all the major spokemen for the so-called new atheist, who near as I can tell are viewed with embarassment by other atheists who are proffesional philosophers.
As to members of the NAS, they are in fields premised upon methodological naturalism and may fall victim to the common tendency–when you are a hammer you tend to think everything is a nail.
March 1st, 2012 | 10:02 pm
Steve:
But we have very good reasons for things like “love, child rearing and appreciation for art”. We have reasons to love others, since we can reasonably recognize ourselves in them, and taking care for them is way of helping ourselves. Raising a child comes from our obligations to our offspring and our concern not only the child well being, but of the rest society (of which child are their future after all). And we actually have theories to explain aesthetics and the concepts attached to different artistic expresions (not to mention a lot of empirically based studies on why we actually have an aesthetic experience). You do not require faith to recognize their existence and you do not require faith to understand their importance.
March 1st, 2012 | 10:08 pm
Blake:
What are the mysteries of the universe that the secular worldview (“humanistic”?) refuses to adress?
March 1st, 2012 | 10:46 pm
krauss has also recently discovered — empirically! — that “nothing” is a scientific concept.
If you consider a vacuum in empty space “nothing,” the recent scientific discoveries about “nothing” are startling. I have been reading about quantum physics recently and understand so little I will not attempt to explain it here, but “nothing” has very interesting properties. See, for example, Nothing: A Very Short Introduction. I did not care for the Krauss piece linked to here, but he does know his physics.
March 2nd, 2012 | 12:14 am
What are the mysteries of the universe that the secular worldview (“humanistic”?) refuses to adress?
If you look at all the scientific metaphysical arguments, you will find that if you drill down deep enough, there is an unanswerable question that they pretend to answer through misdirection.
Take consciousness – the mystery of why human beings should have it, experience it. That’s a mystery, but they act like they can say something meaningful about it. They use a trick: they say it’s “obvious” (which it is, if you accept their starting assumptions as articles of faith) that THIS creature has consciousness and THAT creature does not. Therefore, they say, consciousness is – and then they add whatever they can deduce, relying on those assumptions, about what consciousness “must” be.
They never get to the reality of what consciousness is – how it arises, why it arises, what it is, why it exists, or anything of that sort. They just take you on a loop and then pretend like they’ve answered a question – when in fact they haven’t answered anything at all, except to say that consciousness must be X because if you have these facts (ABC) and you apply these assumptions to it (insert articles of faith), you are left with these answers (XYZ) – ergo, the case is proved.
But they haven’t proved anything at all, except that science is not able to speak meaningfully about metaphysics – which we already knew.
The same sort of looping assumption-based “answers that aren’t answers” can be found whenever you find that line where the physical turns into questions of why and how the physical is. Science is good at talking about the physical, completely unable to talk about the metaphysical, and so uses its own assumptions to pretend that it can tell you that there is no such thing as metaphysical – so there’s no problem. But in so doing, they forget to actually answer any of the questions, and they handle the crisis this brings by sliding you onto some other question instead – instead of “why do we have atoms that are like this?” they answer the question “what rules do atoms follow in their behavior?”, and they pretend that’s the same question.
But of course it’s a very, very different question.
March 2nd, 2012 | 12:19 am
This is not a snobby statement that everyone must go to college or be considered inferior. It is a realistic statement that a high-school diploma is absolutely critical, and further education, be it in college, or in vocational or technical school, or in apprenticeship to learn a trade, is very important.
Actually it really isn’t.
High schools have increasingly been failing spectacularly at teaching anything I would consider important; to the extent that it teaches anything at all, it teaches things that I wouldn’t necessarily want an employee to know.
A diploma is an increasingly worthless bit of paper. It has been reduced to what’s called a “parchment guarantee”, and now it isn’t even useful in that capacity.
Many people skip high school altogether, take a GED type test, and from there go on to do all the things one supposedly needs a high school diploma for. All you really miss is a lot of drama and a lot of drugs, and maybe (if you aren’t good at cadging dates locally) a prom or two.
March 2nd, 2012 | 1:04 am
David Nickol,
The quantum vacuum is merely the zero-energy state of a quantum field. So it presupposes the quantum field itself and to call it “nothing” is, at best, misleading to layman and at worst, a deliberate confusion.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:51 am
I don’t want to speak for Blake, but I think that the question, “why does anything exist at all?” is one of those metaphysical questions that science has not answered.
As modern scientists have increasingly come to the conclusion that the Universe came into existence, they are forced to address the metaphysical question that philosophers have been asking for centuries, “how did the universe, complete with the laws of physics, come into existence out of nothing?”
I have read with anticipation several recent scientific attempts to address this mystery, but so far the authors have “cheated” by attempting to subtlely redefine the meaning of “nothing”.
March 2nd, 2012 | 9:25 am
Blake:
Let’s take your example of consciousness. First at all, you seem to be confusing “secular” with scientific speech. So when you say that science cannot discuss metaphysical issues, you are right. Science is by its very definition, an investigation about the material world. The best science can do is to inform metaphysical discussions. Anyway, science has a lot to say about the rise of consciousness. There is no doubt that the concept has material, biological roots. Investigations on neuroscience are growing all around the world. We have learned a great deal about how the mind works and thus a great deal about consciousness. But investigations are just beginning. It is only natural we don´t have definitive answers.
Now, let’s return to your confusion between scientism and “secular worldview”. Who told you that there isn´t secular talk on the field of metaphysics? The whole enterprise of philosophy was founded on an attempt to understand the world thru reason, not on religious terms. When Plato wanted to kick the poets out of the republic, what he wanted was to get rid of mythological explanations of the world. Even today, not all secular understanding of the world, including the issue of consciousness is founded on hardcore materialism (which in any case IS a metaphysical choice). Take for instance phenomenology developed in the late XIX and early XX century or Donald Davidson anomalous monism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_monism ), examples of two different secular approaches to the problem that are not materialist.
In other words just because you don´t like the answers they are giving it doesn´t mean they do not exist or that different secular approaches to the problem aren´t being tried.
March 2nd, 2012 | 9:31 am
[...] educational process itself, and this survey offers yet another reason why Christians ought to stop lambasting “education” per se. Comments [...]
March 2nd, 2012 | 1:32 pm
Sergio, Your confidence in the ability of neuroscience to explain consciousness is ill-founded. Many neuroscientists do believe it does, but that is a hotly contested assertion even within neuroscience. See Bennet and Hacker’s discussion with Searle and Dennet in _Neuroscience and Philosopy_. See also recent work by Raymond Tallis (who is an atheist, by the way). There are others as well, but I can’t recall them off the top of my head. A google search would yield many, I’m sure.
Secondly, you are confusing logical validity with empirical verifiability, two radically different things. Logic is simply a method for reasoning to conclusions consistent with starting premises. Those premises can be false, but conclusions can still follow from them perfectly logically. Religion is perfectly logical if you accept the premise of a benevolent, all powerful God that created the universe. It follows logically from God’s omnipotence that He can suspend or violate the laws of His creation if He so desires. It follows from His benevolence that he would do so only rarely and only for the most compelling reasons. That premise cannot, of course, be empirically verified.
The question then becomes, is it rational to believe a premise that is empirically unverifiable? If not, science itself is irrational, since it rests on at least two empirically unverifiable premises. The first is that there is a world external to our sensory perception of it. Since empirical varifiability simply means verification by the senses, there is no way to verify that our senses are perceiving anything “out there” since all we have are sensory perceptions (See Kant, Immanuel).
The second, and this is crucial for the efficacy of repeatable experimentation, is cause and effect. Hume demonstrated 2 1/4 centuries ago that causality is not empirically verifiable. All your senses will ever tell you is that one event follows another, never that any event _caused_ another.
Is it then irrational to believe in an external world with cause and effect? I don’t think so. Quite the opposite in fact. Clearly, then, it is rational to believe in at least some empirically unverifiable premises.
The question then becomes, is God one of those premises? I believe so. First, believers have included people who are not just rational, but some of humanity’s greatest minds (Augustine, Aquinas, and MacIntyre among philosophers; Polkinghorne and Collins among scientists; Eliot, Tate, and Percy among poets and novelists, to name a few). Certainly that is no logical proof of God’s existence, but surely belief in something by so many profoundly rational people counts as inductive evidence that the belief itself is not irrational. In addition many rational arguments have been made in favor of the premise of God. Those arguments may fail (there is deep controversy about that even today), but they are hardly irrational or made by ignorant or insane people. In short, to paraphrase Hamlet, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your 19th century village atheist philosophy, Horatio.
March 2nd, 2012 | 1:42 pm
Sergio Mendez: “Anyway, science has a lot to say about the rise of consciousness. ”
Issues involving the intersection of neuro-science and the philosophy of the mind are an area in which I have recently taken an interests. I am newcomer to the topic so I am sure that there is much I can learn.
This issue has always struck me as a profoundly difficult one for science and unguided evolution. Insofar as “natural selection” is blind to our mental states, it would seem to me that “zombie” or perhaps “compuer-like cyborg” beings without consciousness could satisfy natural selection’s requirement that animals behave adaptively without the evolutionary costs involved in having such large, highly sophisticated brains.
It is an a topic that I would like to learn more about so perhaps you or other readers can point me to some scholarly work in this area.
March 2nd, 2012 | 3:17 pm
Sergio Mendez: I did a bit of research on my own and was astounded that my musings have a long-history and have generated great debates on the topic of philosophical zombies.
I think this passage states the issue as clearly as any I have yet found in my brief research:
“One final point before our discussion: The possibility of zombies seems to pose a problem for evolutionary theory. Why should human beings as creatures with conscious inner lives have survived rather than zombie counterparts of those creatures? Worse, does the seeming evolutionary economy of zombies mean that consciousness is an evolutionary dead end? (We’re back with epiphenomenalism here.) Wouldn’t it be more ‘efficient’ for natural selection to select for zombies rather than human beings? If not then what ecological function or evolutionary purpose could consciousness possibly have? ”
“And this is a serious point. Owen Flanagan and Thomas Polger have claimed that:
‘There are as yet no credible stories about why [conscious] subjects of experience emerged, why they might have won, or should have been expected to win, an evolutionary battle against very intelligent zombie-like information-sensitive organisms’
- O. Flanagan and T. Polger, ‘Zombies and the Function of Consciousness’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2, 1995, 313-321. ”
“One response is to suggest that there are as yet undiscovered fundamental biological or psycho-biological laws linking conscious experience to the physical. Such laws, qua laws, would not depend on whether conscious creatures ever happened to evolve. In this case evolution and evolutionary thrift would seem to pose no real threat to the usefulness of consciousness and the meaningfulness of our mental productions. (A version of this response is offered by David Chalmers, see The Conscious Mind, OUP, 1996, p. 171)”
“But is this what it comes to? In order to preserve the idea that science, in particular neuroscience, genetics and evolutionary psychology, can deliver a proper explanation of consciousness and what it is to be human, do we really have to fall back on a belief in as-yet undiscovered fundamental biological or psycho-biological laws linking conscious experience to the physical? Faith indeed!”
http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/GDBHZombie.html
Although not precisely on point, my own interests in this area were generated by reading Alvin Plantiga’s “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism” found in the last chapter of his recent book on science.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:09 pm
fred,
well said. science as a human endeavor must assume from the outset that realism is true. realism is, of course, a metaphysical position.
which means philosophy goes deeper than science. which means science depends on philosophy. which is krauss’ position in reverse.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:13 pm
Let’s take your example of consciousness. First at all, you seem to be confusing “secular” with scientific speech.
You don’t seem to have understood what I said.
I said that the secular mythology – and view of rationality – does not hold up unless one ignores the mysteries, the unanswerables.
And that secular America deals with this through cognitive dissonance and through sleight of hand.
The cited examples were merely some examples of the sort of sleight of hand used to reinforce the mythology – the belief that it is possible to have a “rational” view of the world.
Again, let me go back to my original point: it is only possible to be “rational” when we have adequate data. When we do not, then your assumptions are just as faith-based as mine (or anyone elses) so please do not insinuate or assert that your culture and its institutions somehow create or result in a more “rational” as a person than Christian institutions. It is not a “rational” thing to say.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:20 pm
This issue has always struck me as a profoundly difficult one for science and unguided evolution. Insofar as “natural selection” is blind to our mental states, it would seem to me that “zombie” or perhaps “compuer-like cyborg” beings without consciousness could satisfy natural selection’s requirement that animals behave adaptively without the evolutionary costs involved in having such large, highly sophisticated brains.
Why consciousness?
This is a mystery. Scientists have a great deal to say about consciousness, if you start from the assumption that there is no God, that all is material, and that the “most elegant” solution is almost certainly the correct solution.
Of course, all three of those assumptions are faith-based – great leaps of faith, in fact.
Take away those assumptions, and everything science has constructed crumbles.
March 2nd, 2012 | 9:52 pm
Fred:
Let me assure you that I am not big fan of materialism, especially as a way to explain phenomena such as consciousness. I am very skeptical of stuff like sociobiology (of which I do not even consider science), and I do not accept that a phenomena such as conscience can be explained in pure scientific terms. On the other side, don´t be so quick to dismiss the research people like neuroscientists are doing in the field. They actually are helping to get a part of the puzzle, and that cannot be denied.
On the issue of my “confusion of logical validity with empirical verifiability”; First, I never used the word “logic” in my posts. I used the words “rationally and empirically”, which were the terms used by the author of this post. And “rationally” for me is a broader term than logic (which is just a tool of reason, not reason itself). I also want to note that I distinguished it from “empirical” (to the point of not being labeled as some sort of positivist), so it amazes me, even more, that you think I confused both. Finally, I will not discuss if theism is logical…it depends on the kind of theism. I am not enterily sure that Christianity survives the test, especially when confronted with the argument of evil, although I will not make a strong claim for that.
On the rest of your post (and also according to what others have posted here), yes, I agree that science relies on large metaphysical assumptions (being realism one of them and the trust we place on our senses another), that cannot be demonstrated. But I do not agree with your claim that those assumptions are equivalent to the existence of God.
I know some theistic philosophers have tried to make a case for such claim, as Plantinga, who (correct me if I am wrong) says that belief in God is a properly basic belief (of the kind of the existence of the world is real) but then, I think he is wrong ultimately. I think the belief in God is an unwarranted assumption. Is not that you can ignore God existence the way you can ignore the existence of the exterior world or pretend to live like a solipsist. I also think religious perception is not a equivalent to some of our senses, like eyesight for example (so the atheist can be seen as a blind man who refuses to believe in the existence of such sense). I think it is far more probable that religious beliefs people hold are to a large set of causes (psychological, social conditioning, misplaced reasoning) than some innate sense of the divine.
Finally I find your argument that claims that since a lot of great minds in human history were theists, theism is therefore rational, fallacious. First, that is essentially an argument of authority, a classical logical fallacy. Second I concour that many theists hold reasonable arguments for their beliefs, but I contend their arguments are not reasonable enough.
Blake:
You still try to equate the secular “worldview” with some vocal and prevalent scientism that reigns in anglosaxon countries among atheists and agnostics. Despite that I provided some counter examples to prove you wrong, understandings of consciousness that do not relly on materialism or scientism (but are secular in their understanding), you simply refuse to see it.
Finally I find your last paragraph weird, but not uncommon among religious conservatives. You know why? Because when it suits you, you hang on the postmodernist discourse that rejects the idea of rationality (“it is only possible to be ´rational´ when we have adequate data. When we do not, then your assumptions are just as faith-based as mine”), but when that same discourse touches your faith, then you switch back to the talk on natural law, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, etc…Sorry, I just don´t buy it. I do not accept you have to get all the facts to be rationall. There are many rational assumptions about the nature of reality, some of them more reasonable than the others. Realism is preferable to anti realism or solipsism. If you want to play that game, do it, but don´t count to me to join you.
March 3rd, 2012 | 3:53 pm
You still try to equate the secular “worldview” with some vocal and prevalent scientism that reigns in anglosaxon countries among atheists and agnostics.
No, I don’t.
I simply point out that there is no secular worldview that qualifies as “rational” in the sense that you suggested in your first post.
You made a sneering comment suggesting that education and secularism and rational, criticial thinking all go in one category, while Christianity goes into the other. This is false.
Rational, critical thinking is possible about those things which there is adequate information.
Where secular and Christian worldviews mostly differ is on stuff that is beyond what can be proven – on things that involve mysteries.
Christianity, like every other religion, deals with the mysteries via a narrative that purports to explain why things are the way they are. This narrative must either be accepted on faith or else rejected; a religious narrative cannot be proven or disproven.
The secular worldview descended from the Enlightenment largely deals with the mysteries in one of two ways: it constructs its own faith-based narratives, or it simply avoids anything it can’t answer – through denial and misdirection.
There is no secular worldview that is capable of answering the questions raised by the mysteries. Only religions can approach these questions, and no truly secular worldview can “rationally” approach these questions.
I have always been interested in the question of agnosticism, ever since I read an article on how agnostics are way more likely to believe in astrology. The human brain can’t function without guiding beliefs. This is what religion gives us – our identity, who we are, what we are, why we are here. We can’t function without this sort of identity. We experience a very painful sort of confusion. I’ve experienced this myself, and I’ve read about it in textbooks and articles: I do not believe we can truly live with the tension of unanswerable questions, and we reduce our risk by adopting beliefs even when those beliefs are not based on strong evidence or sound reasoning.
Not only is there no rational answer to the questions raised by the existence of the mysteries, there’s also no answer that doesn’t sound silly. Which is why, IMO, secular people tend to avoid these questions – especially those who are heavily invested in their reputations and their supposed “rationality”.
Which is why, when you ask something like whether the existence of a self-organizing universe doesn’t support the idea of there being something like God, secular people will almost always answer not by addressing the question per se, but by refuting the question through misdirection – by explaining exactly how self-organization works.
Or they may not go the ‘scientism’ route, but may go some other route – another common route is to respond with some variant on, “well, whatever I believe, it can’t possibly be as silly as your beliefs!” (or just skip that and cut right to the attack on your beliefs).
But it really ought to be self-evident:
- the universe is full of what we can know and what we can’t know (because we don’t have enough information);
- we can only be rational about what we know
- we can only work on what we can’t know if we start from assumptions
- such assumptions are necessarily based on faith
- the only way the secular worldview could be viewed as “more rational” than a religious one is if you accept on faith that the assumptions of materialism are superior to assumptions that permit the possibility of spiritual dimensions.
March 3rd, 2012 | 3:55 pm
Finally I find your last paragraph weird, but not uncommon among religious conservatives. You know why? Because when it suits you, you hang on
I find this paragraph weird.
Are we talking about me personally, or is this related to what we were debating?
March 4th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
Blake:
“No, I don’t.
I simply point out that there is no secular worldview that qualifies as “rational” in the sense that you suggested in your first post.”
But you did. You actually think there is one “one secular worldview”, which is based on scientism that came from the Enlightment. You are wrong. I showed to you there are many philosophical secular approaches to the same problem (ie, consciousness).
You also claim that secular worldview “avoids confronting mysteries”. You are wrong to. Just because you don´t like their answers or the method, it hardly means they do not confront those mysteries. I actually don´t like the way religions confront their mysteries too. Saying that God did it is not an answer, it just adds more mysteries that, in my opinion, religion is not interested in confronting (“Why did God made the world this way? Why God had to create an universe at all all? If the problem of infinite regresion is solved by a God, who created God?” etc..). But at least I will not going around pretending religions don´t try to answer the mysteries we all face, nor say that all religions have the same worldview (to talk as if there is some unified “theistic worldview”).
March 5th, 2012 | 5:33 am
“Didn’t the Murray book recently published about the differences between Belmont and Fishtown indicate that well-educated people tend to practice religion more faithfully?”
I haven’t read Murray’s book but this sounds like an oversimplification. The Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey shows that Christian affiliation declines with education: 83% of high school drop-outs identify as Christian while only 68% of people with graduate degrees do.
Some of this is due to demographics: a disproportionate number of people with graduate degrees in the U.S. are Jews or Asian immigrants from non-Christian backgrounds. However, the percentage of high school graduates who identify as unaffiliated is 16% while it is 19% for people with graduate degrees.
It would be interesting to see both religious affiliation and frequency of attending religious services tabulated by education but I don’t see such tabulations presented in Pew’s report.
March 5th, 2012 | 10:38 pm
But you did. You actually think there is one “one secular worldview”, which is based on scientism that came from the Enlightment. You are wrong. I showed to you there are many philosophical secular approaches to the same problem (ie, consciousness).
It is absolutely true that I believe all secular belief descends from the Enlightenment. Where else would secular belief come from?
But as for the rest, I do not recognize those as my thoughts. If I ever suggested that all secular people hold identical beliefs on the nature of consciousness, I apologize. It really strikes me as absolutely irrelevant how many different speculative theories there are about consciousness.
Just because you don´t like their answers or the method, it hardly means they do not confront those mysteries.
You might think that changing the question “why” to “how” is an adequate way of confronting a mystery, but I call it denial – and dishonest to boot.
But that’s beside the point. The point, as I see it, is that you said this:
This is what I was responding to: the combination of value judgement about what “we” (society) “should” do, combined with the suggestion that your way is somehow “rational” and thus deserving of a higher claim on determining what “path” society “should…take”.
I know it’s part of your “faith” – if you’ll pardon the expression – to accept without questioning that to be secular and materialist = to be “rational”, but I am not obliged to accept on faith that to be secular is to be rational, or to be spiritual is to be less rational. The concept of “rational” can only apply to what is knowable, and the word itself turns into something that looks a lot like a paradox when it is treated as a thing to be accepted on faith.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact