Intermediates and Paradigms
Over the last few months, I've seen debates between various stripes of atheists and various stripes of religionists. Those aren't the only kinds of debates. But it strikes me that real-life debates are a lot more contentious and shifty than the sterile closed debates of the Worlds championships, university competitions, and the like — simply because the limits to argument are fewer and less restrictive.
This doesn't mean the debates are more focussed, or that the quality of debate is better. But it does highlight the point that whereas competitive debate is designed to win by achieving a higher score, real-life debate may have real consequences (for example, whether the US gets proper health care or not) or at least, real but unquantifiable effects (for example, whether some religionist reassesses his faith or not).
Sometimes however, I find myself irked by the fact that historical evidence is taken so lightly by both sides. Christians, in particular, are terrible at accepting the awful parts of Christian history. They aren't much better at using the good parts of their history in defence. In general, Christians (and often their cousins the Muslims) tend to have this illusion that their faith has been unchanged for centuries. They share one trait in common with scientists: what I call psychological archaeology.
By psychological archaeology, I mean that these people are convinced that as they unearth more and more of reality, the underlying structure will be revealed and shorn of all distractions until it is a perfect and untainted revelation. For Christians, the phrase, "we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face" comes to mind; for scientists, the idea that reduction to ever more basic principles, unto grand unification, is a holy grail.
Both look at the world with this in mind; if you tell a Christian that Christian principles don't apply to all aspects of life — or if you tell a scientist that scientific principles don't — the rejection of your statement would be nearly automatic. Both are reductionist in their philosophy; the former will say that for everything God has a purpose, the latter will say that there is nothing that cannot be explained in principle. It is the common idea that 'in the end' or 'as time goes by', we will see more and more clearly.
What I believe, historically, is that science has never been possible without religion. Their close ideological kinship, in the sense of assuming that explanations for certain phenomena must exist, and that it is possible to think logically about what they might be, is made obvious when the historical record is invoked. Mathematics arises from one aspect of religion — the need to measure the world and its changes, such as seasons, tides, and food production. Technology arises from another aspect of religion — the assumption that the world has been given to us to manipulate, or that the world can indeed be manipulated by superior force.
The modern world, from a non-theistic perspective, tends to think that religion doesn't ask questions, that religion makes no tests or advances no theories about reality. Historically, that's untrue. The Bible, for example, is a most contention-riddled book; its protagonists often engage in debate with their God, apply tests by experimental comparison, and advance theories about why God does this or that. Sometimes, God refutes them; sometimes God answers in the affirmative.
Similarly, the track-record of Islamic science is only exceeded by the track-record of technology from the more Asian side of the Eurasian continent. Until the great disruptions engendered by the eventual Western renaissance, and the unfortunate temporary descent of China into introspective feebleness, religion and the philosophy engendered by it were the main driving force of civilisation.
It is easy to say, as many non-theists do, that barbaric things have been done in the name of religion, or that religion predisposes humans to such things. It is also easy to say, as many religionists do, that barbaric things have been done in the name of science, or that science predisposes humans to such things. Both are right, for a simple reason: both are human constructs based on either an implicit or explicit belief that there really is a fundamental truth, and humans are predisposed to occasional acts of barbarism (since by definition, all barbarians are humans).
But it is better to take the historical approach and dig into the heart of all these practices and how their paradigms can be described. They are remarkably similar. And all of them have intermediate stages. All of them have fundamental tenets which are adapted for new realities, and have these adaptations 'written into' canon or at least footnotes.
Proponents of Islam and Judaism may disagree, because their fundamental tenets (or at least, texts) are closely guarded in the original form (or as close as centuries of human guardianship can make it). But new interpretations for new technologies and new ideas happen all the time. Are painkillers prohibited or proscribed? Is evolutionary psychology evil? Do we have free will even if we seem not to have?
In the secular world, these questions are equivalent to the question of whether the United Nations has been a good thing. The answer, quite obviously is 'yes' with the caveat 'but not yet good enough'. It is the same, on a different timescale, with science. Consider the life of the UN from 24 Oct 1945 till today. Based on 54 years of uneven performance, some of us judge its results and make mocking noises. What then do we do with science, based on (conservatively) 500 years of uneven performance? Or Christianity, with about 2000 years of uneven performance?
The answer has to be a historical one. What was the state of the world when X was started? What is the state of the world now? Is it possible to directly attribute any of the changes to X? What is the evidence? Is it unequivocal? And so on. These questions are difficult to answer, and the answers we get may be equivocal or ambiguous.
But more likely, what you will find is that the historical argument will show that science is an evolutionary offshoot of religion, and that both branches continue to thrive in their own niches. Competition between the two is fierce, and yet in the fertile savannas of the mind, there is likely to be more than enough food and water to sustain them both for a long time more to come.
This doesn't mean the debates are more focussed, or that the quality of debate is better. But it does highlight the point that whereas competitive debate is designed to win by achieving a higher score, real-life debate may have real consequences (for example, whether the US gets proper health care or not) or at least, real but unquantifiable effects (for example, whether some religionist reassesses his faith or not).
Sometimes however, I find myself irked by the fact that historical evidence is taken so lightly by both sides. Christians, in particular, are terrible at accepting the awful parts of Christian history. They aren't much better at using the good parts of their history in defence. In general, Christians (and often their cousins the Muslims) tend to have this illusion that their faith has been unchanged for centuries. They share one trait in common with scientists: what I call psychological archaeology.
By psychological archaeology, I mean that these people are convinced that as they unearth more and more of reality, the underlying structure will be revealed and shorn of all distractions until it is a perfect and untainted revelation. For Christians, the phrase, "we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face" comes to mind; for scientists, the idea that reduction to ever more basic principles, unto grand unification, is a holy grail.
Both look at the world with this in mind; if you tell a Christian that Christian principles don't apply to all aspects of life — or if you tell a scientist that scientific principles don't — the rejection of your statement would be nearly automatic. Both are reductionist in their philosophy; the former will say that for everything God has a purpose, the latter will say that there is nothing that cannot be explained in principle. It is the common idea that 'in the end' or 'as time goes by', we will see more and more clearly.
What I believe, historically, is that science has never been possible without religion. Their close ideological kinship, in the sense of assuming that explanations for certain phenomena must exist, and that it is possible to think logically about what they might be, is made obvious when the historical record is invoked. Mathematics arises from one aspect of religion — the need to measure the world and its changes, such as seasons, tides, and food production. Technology arises from another aspect of religion — the assumption that the world has been given to us to manipulate, or that the world can indeed be manipulated by superior force.
The modern world, from a non-theistic perspective, tends to think that religion doesn't ask questions, that religion makes no tests or advances no theories about reality. Historically, that's untrue. The Bible, for example, is a most contention-riddled book; its protagonists often engage in debate with their God, apply tests by experimental comparison, and advance theories about why God does this or that. Sometimes, God refutes them; sometimes God answers in the affirmative.
Similarly, the track-record of Islamic science is only exceeded by the track-record of technology from the more Asian side of the Eurasian continent. Until the great disruptions engendered by the eventual Western renaissance, and the unfortunate temporary descent of China into introspective feebleness, religion and the philosophy engendered by it were the main driving force of civilisation.
It is easy to say, as many non-theists do, that barbaric things have been done in the name of religion, or that religion predisposes humans to such things. It is also easy to say, as many religionists do, that barbaric things have been done in the name of science, or that science predisposes humans to such things. Both are right, for a simple reason: both are human constructs based on either an implicit or explicit belief that there really is a fundamental truth, and humans are predisposed to occasional acts of barbarism (since by definition, all barbarians are humans).
But it is better to take the historical approach and dig into the heart of all these practices and how their paradigms can be described. They are remarkably similar. And all of them have intermediate stages. All of them have fundamental tenets which are adapted for new realities, and have these adaptations 'written into' canon or at least footnotes.
Proponents of Islam and Judaism may disagree, because their fundamental tenets (or at least, texts) are closely guarded in the original form (or as close as centuries of human guardianship can make it). But new interpretations for new technologies and new ideas happen all the time. Are painkillers prohibited or proscribed? Is evolutionary psychology evil? Do we have free will even if we seem not to have?
In the secular world, these questions are equivalent to the question of whether the United Nations has been a good thing. The answer, quite obviously is 'yes' with the caveat 'but not yet good enough'. It is the same, on a different timescale, with science. Consider the life of the UN from 24 Oct 1945 till today. Based on 54 years of uneven performance, some of us judge its results and make mocking noises. What then do we do with science, based on (conservatively) 500 years of uneven performance? Or Christianity, with about 2000 years of uneven performance?
The answer has to be a historical one. What was the state of the world when X was started? What is the state of the world now? Is it possible to directly attribute any of the changes to X? What is the evidence? Is it unequivocal? And so on. These questions are difficult to answer, and the answers we get may be equivocal or ambiguous.
But more likely, what you will find is that the historical argument will show that science is an evolutionary offshoot of religion, and that both branches continue to thrive in their own niches. Competition between the two is fierce, and yet in the fertile savannas of the mind, there is likely to be more than enough food and water to sustain them both for a long time more to come.
Labels: History, Odd Thoughts, Philosophy, Religion, Science
etched with acid at 11:08:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home