Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

All world-views (“how we see things”), as human constructions of reality, start with unprovable foundational beliefs or assumptions. They are assumed within one world-view and impossible to disprove from another. An accepted world-view provides hopefully an emotionally and intellectually comfortable set of perspectives about our existence in the world, by addressing the fundamental questions and answers of life. More importantly we need to recognise that, despite the intellectual claims and counter-claims, world-views are shaped, at least initially, by people’s familial and cultural backgrounds. Only later some may question these fundamental assumptions when they seem overwhelmingly inadequate to explain our experiences. So the ‘problem of evil’ continues to challenge a world-view with an all-powerful, loving God and indiscriminate and gratuitious suffering.

Naturalism, as a world-view, also is founded on fundamental assumptions or beliefs about reality. Firstly, the physical world exists independently of our perceptions. I walk into a room and see a chair. I then expect that chair to exist in the room even after I leave and, if the chair is unmoved, it will be there on my return. This is the philosophical concept of ‘realism’ and is held automatically by most people. Philosophers often talk about naive and critical realism where the latter unlike the former recognises that our perceptions of external objects are always processed or mediated.

Secondly, we are physical beings in a physical world and all our experiences derive from that interrelationship. Naturalists do not seek explanations or comfort from believing in ‘realities’ beyond our interactions within the physical world. Broadly the physical world is seen as interconnected material objects and forces that are commonly referred to as ‘nature’. Nature is not considered inherently conscious.

The only way we understand the physical world is through personal perceptions interpreted by human reason. Even though we would like to think the physical world is knowable, most would recognise the inherent flaws in our preceptive-reasoning capabilities that make any such claim as nonsense. There will always be a ‘disconnect’ between us and the world around us. In many ways our views of reality are really human constructs.
Thirdly, naturalists consider the empirically-based natural and social sciences as our most successful ways of utilising human perception and reasoning to understand ourselves in the physical world. Sciences provide many safe-guards to counter human biases, wishful thinking, and perceptual errors so to produce reliable ‘social knowledge’ about the physical world. Peer testing, open debates, and seeking falsifications are all part of the scientific processes. Ideally nothing is open to challenge. And despite frequent changes in the extremes of scientific enquiry – the very small, very large, and very distant – the vast majority of scientific knowledge is stable and highly reliable.

Fourthly, naturalists are sceptical of a priori knowledge claims, knowledge claims independent of human experience. These claims are acceptable for artificial systems like games and mathematics. So not surprisingly reasoning from the rules of chess can be made without personal playing experience. One might say that scientists also make knowledge claims without having empirical support. And that’s true. Einstein promoted hypotheses long before they could be verified by experiment. However we need to consider two points here. Scientists expect to have both experimental evidence and meaningful explanations sometime in the future as the need for experimental verification can be placed on-hold if plausable explanations are provided initially. Even then full acceptance is usually withheld until verified empirically. This attitude contrasts with many religions that embrace the concept of on-going ‘mysterious’ without any rational explanations sought now or in the future. Just accept the mystery, something that is an anthema to scientific enquiry.

Fifthly and finally, naturalists do not give any particular weight to traditional beliefs and writings. Isaac Newton’s or Charles Darwin’s writings are fascinating in the history of science but of little use for today’s scientific research. They are respected as interesting historical documents but little else. This contrasts dramatically with most religious attitudes towards ancient texts as scripture, which many followers still see as unique and god-given sources of truth.

For naturalists, Christian, Jewish or Islamic scriptures are simply constructions of fragmented ancient human writings, made during ancient times and places so different to our own. Their world understandings were so alien with extra-physical beings as causing human maladies and good fortunes. Quite famously they operated within a three-tier cosmos with heaven above and hell below and the flat Earth between, being their battleground between good and evil. Those writings may have expressed some common truths about the human condition but they are so packaged within an alien world-view combined with later layers of religious interpretation to provide little attraction for people today. Most will turn to newer insightful sources.

So am I dismissing a study of Jewish and Christian texts as a waste of time? Certainly not. I regularly read and study Christian and Jewish scriptures combined with historical and cultural studies of ancient Israel and Palestine. Both libraries of books have had and continue to have immense impact on our society. But I see them as influential ancient human texts, interpreted and re-interpreted over the years effectively hiding any original understandings and intents.

Naturalism is the world-view held, in practical terms, by most people in Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe. They may profess some sort of deist ‘there must be something’ beyond our physical world, but it makes no difference to their lives. With less than eight percent as regular church attendees the vast majority see churches as social institutions and antiquated ones at that. There is every sign of the churchs’ continued decline.

Like all world-views, naturalism is built on some foundational beliefs about our place in our world. For naturalists we are physical beings in a physical world ans our empirically-based sciences are our best way of knowing that relationship. It is all about human perception and human reason. Furthermore we need to recognise that there will always be a perceptional separation between us and the world around us. We process and interpret all our perceptions subconsciously before conscious awareness. It’s a matter of finding the best fit between experiences and explanation, and naturalism provides a solid basis for both.

Alex McCullie

Historians tell stories about events in the past, events occurring in actual times and places. All historical stories are reconstructions of events from physical evidence and oral histories set within interpreted causal frameworks. Though answering ‘why’ is popular by historians today, this is controversial with some (David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, 1971) and sometimes challenged as going too far, being too speculative. Ultimately the cautionary note for readers is to be aware that these stories are products of the particular historians as well as the events they seek to cover. So we must consider the historical accounts as probabilistic by nature rather than declarations of certainty. Frustratingly for those seeking the ‘truth’, we can have two or more quite contradictory and but plausible explanations for the same series of events from equally respected historians. Perhaps the first ban in history should be on the word ‘truth’ and its associated question ‘what really happened?’ Or, at least, give them nuanced understandings different to our everyday usages. If we can never know in any absolute or definitive sense, what keeps us separate from the past?

Alex McCullie

US continues to confound Western outsiders – Australians, Kiwis, Brits, and Europeans. In response to a recent Federal Court ruling of  National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional the Pew Forum quoted a 2007/2008 religious survey, showing that 58% of the US over 18 population pray on a daily basis. Equally interesting is the spread across different faiths and denominations with the lowest faith being Jewish at 26%. The ‘unaffiliated’ are still 22%. I suppose the question for that group is ‘what is meant by the activity of prayer?’ and implicitly to whom or what. Alex McCullie

Let’s start with the big one. The mundane and short nature of our lives, some eighty years if lucky, seems a cruel trick of nature to play on self-aware beings. And worse, we soon realise that once dead we shall fade into the forgotten mists of time, lucky to be remembered one generation later. Believing in a caring, eternal god with an after-life offer some comfort;  ’see you again in another life’ at a funeral epitomises this hope.

Final Comments
Atheists argue that we should be mature enough to stand upright in our world without a prop from a god belief (or delusion). Engaging with life,  family, and friends gives genuine fulfillment “here and now” with a sense of continuity. Guilt-provoking though comforting religions are too high a price for most atheists to pay. Religious hope equates to a lotto-style dream with a high price tag. It’s a poor substitute for the reality of living.

Channel 4 documentary 2007 – challenging traditional conceptions of Jesus

Easter weekend featured a plethora of Jesus and Bible documentaries on cable and free-to-air television: I watched Decoding the Past: the Resurrection on the History Channel. The documentary, colourfully illustrated as History docos tend to be, presented Christian Theology interleaved with limited doses of historical skepticism. It featured two of the most prominent Christian apologists – Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig. In general historians have problems accepting miracle claims and typically exclude them from historical analyses much to the chagrin of Christian scholars. So, why should historians exclude miracle claims like Jesus’ post-death appearances?

Historical research and analysis are all about the probability of past events combined with interpretation. People should ban questions like “what really happened?”. Expressions like “best evidence suggests…” and “little support for…” are more realistic characterisations. Not surprisingly well-qualified historians, using exactly the same sources, can quite commonly draw different though equally well-argued conclusions. This can be very frustrating for outsiders seeking definite answers.

Historical research, like that of the sciences, is essentially a secular activity, independent of any religious faiths. Historians assume that the world and its people behaved in the past as it does today. So claims from the past of people flying unaided would be seen as highly improbable, if not impossible, as that cannot be done today. We have no reason to accept “supernatural” occurrences of the past that we would not accept today. Historical research assumes a predictable, natural world and miracles are rejected as making historical probabilities to historical impossibilities. Historians have little choice to do this as they are trying to make sense of considerable uncertainties without the acceptance of (highly improbable or impossible) miracles.

So what interests historians with claims of Jesus’ post-death appearances? It is the followers who make the claims. Scholars will so attempt to understand the nature and likelihood of his execution within the Jewish social context of early first century. The voracity of the claims themselves are not part of the historical analysis.

Historians work with physical evidence, written documents and artifacts – tax records, commercial documents, household items, artworks, and so on. The primary written sources for Jesus’ execution are the Christian texts – canonical and apocryphal. Here are the earliest:

Letters of Paul, dated around 50CE, were occasional letters written to early Christian communities as instructions and advice. Surprisingly, Paul mentioned nothing of the historical Jesus, only concentrating of the risen Christ, the one of later Christian faith. Even when discussing a moral point with one of his communities Paul argued without referring to a pertinent Jesus saying (later quoted in a gospel). Some scholars see that omission as evidence against the existence of the historical Jesus. Either if not the case Paul provides no useful evidence for Jesus, the man.

The “Q” document, hypothetically constructed by scholars from the common text of Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. “Q” contains sayings of Jesus only without any narratives about his life; his execution is unmentioned. “Q” is dated around 50CE or earlier.

The gospel of Mark, dated around 70CE, is considered to be the first New Testament gospel and the basis for Jesus ministry of Matthew and Luke. Like the other gospels the authorship is unknown. Mark makes no mention of Jesus’ life prior to his baptism by John and he ends the gospel with an empty tomb after his execution. Post-death appearances of Jesus are unmentioned. As an aside we need to remember that the gospels are Christian propaganda, documents of faith, that give a narrative structure to the Jesus stories and sayings circulating amongst the Christian communities. They were written by urbanised, Greek-educated Jews some 40 to 70 years after the death of Jesus. By contrast most scholars characterise Jesus as an Aramaic-speaking, itinerant Jew, preaching in rural Galilee.

The gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John dated between 80-100CE and again are of unknown authorship, offer vastly differing accounts of Jesus after his death. Their stories are difficult to reconcile. Similarly their infancy stories differ markedly.

Metro news site reports that Belgium is closer to banning the public wearing of the burka and other face coverage, typically worn by some Islamic women. A final vote will be taken on 22 April though all government parties support the proposed bill.

‘We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen,’ said Daniel Bacquelaine, who proposed the bill.

Many people are ambivalent about the full-coverage religious clothing. It seems symbolic of systematic oppression of one group within religious communities by the dominant group. To our simplistic view Islamic women are required to hide publicly their bodies so that Islamic men can control their sexual and aggressive urges. On the other hand we live in a tolerant society that encourages personal expression and the women concerned claim ‘freedom of choice’, a problematic concept within any close-knit societies or groups. The Belgium proponents bypass this concern and argue against the secrecy of hiding one’s face while in public similar to shops banning the wearing of motorcycle helmets.

Thinking about these issues becomes more complicated when religious defenders raise the banning of displaying or wearing crucifixes, kippahs, turbans, rotary club badges, and so on. Where do we stop?

Alex McCullie

Australian ABC Science reports that neuroscience continues to link brain function and human moral behaviour with God’s involvement becoming more and more a fantastic speculation. This time it is magnetic effects on moral choices from Massachusetts Institute of Technology research with similar results to loading the brain while making moral choices. Under load and magnetism, apparently, we turn to choices based on outcomes more than the perpetrator’s intentions. Again this seems choosing between the utilitarian and deontological ethical systems.

Alex McCullie

Excellent joint article by a scientist and a philosopher on limitations of the hypothesis in the doing of science and some practical alternatives.

http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(08)00953-7

Alex McCullie