Alex’s Heresies - embracing a physical reality

If you want a laugh, then have a look at http://www.theamericannightmare.org/. I particularly enjoyed the blasphemy section! Admittedly I found its shouting style (large bold fonts) tedious after a while. Of course I wouldn’t recommend too much time on this site any way. I’m sure you have better things to do.

To be balanced here is a more reasonable Christian-based site: http://templeton.org.

Alex McCullie

Discover magazine article How To Teach Science to the Pope 18-Aug-2008 describes the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the testy (at times) relationship between the Academy’s independence and church doctrine. One example was over the need for population control promoted by the Academy that was contrary to the church’s opposition to birth control and contraception. (See article 16-Jun-1994) From the 1994 article Cardinal Clancy makes a particularly instructive remark showing how religious leaders react to being challenged.

Edward Cardinal Clancy of Sydney, Australia, said that in cases of perceived conflict between the church and scientists, “the question mark must rather be raised over what’s being said in the name of science.”

The Discover article highlights some interesting aspects of science and religion.

First, I think science is often misrepresented as conducted by robot-like white coated scientists who are devoid of feelings and concerns about people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Often they are very passsionate about their work and the potential benefits for humanity. However the important aspect, though, is that they work in accordance with accepted methods that have proved very successful at generating reliable information. Speculation - reasoned and superstitious - can be very much part of religion and philosophy. On the other hand science attempts to minimised speculation and human wishful thinking by making hypotheses, conclusions and research data in some way empirically-based.

Second, “scientism” is an easy catch-call when scientific research and discoveries threaten firmly-held religious beliefs and dogmas. Heliocentic view of Earth, Theory of Evolution and Neuroscience are providing convincing support for a physicalist view of humans and our world. Religious leaders often react in two different ways. Some deny all scientific achievements that contradict their sacred texts. The Earth was created 6000 years ago and evolution is the work of Satan. While others dramatically re-interpret scriptures to be more science-friendly and evolution-friendly. However “scientism” still comes out of the cupboard whenever the religious feel threatened. Our society has an almost automatic assumption that religious people, who are often just purveyors of their particular religious beliefs and dogma, are somehow more qualified to talk about human well-being than anyone else. Thoughtful scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, politicians and others should all be assessed on the merits of their comments and expertise regardless of whether they are the Dali Lama or the Pope or the local priest or a Nobel prize winning biologist.

Third, a common retort to critics of religious belief is that they attacked an old-fashion version of God. Typically these religious thinkers present a very attenuated version of God that seems devoid of the classic theist properties - all powerful, ever present, all loving, interested in humans and interventionist. That is until we talk specifics. Most religious leaders still believe miracles happen - temporary suspension of all natural laws by a divine being to use Hume’s definition. Some though place an upper limit of numbers otherwise our lives would be unpredictable. Thank you for small mercies.

The Discover article quotes Father Rafael Martínez, the STOQ program director at Holy Cross.

Martínez explains that while rare, miracles are still plausible. “Our world is a very complex world in which chaos and uncertainty have a big part… but the odds are one in many terabillions,” he says. “That would be not a problem in my point of view because this event would be guided in a way without contradicting natural laws.”

It doesn’t get fluffier than that - if not contradicting natural laws so why is it a miracle? It is hard to know what to make of miracles from scientifically aware believers. They need miracles to demonstrate the validity of their religion. But claiming too many exposes them to being shown to have natural causes or worse not even happening at all. To a critic it is also interesting that most “real” miracles seem to have occurred in more primitive times prior to the advent of modern science. A cynic might suppose that God is shier today than 2000 years ago or, perhaps, He does not exist at all.

Finally, religious thinkers on one hand use a very nebulous, non-invasive, loving version of God to defend His existence and to criticise atheists as attacking a “straw man”. Then in the next breath many firm up supporting very restrictive religious rules on human behaviour such as a prohibition of contraception even if demonstrated to help reduce HIV infection.

Alex McCullie

Stephen Law, British philosopher, discusses Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion (chapter one) as part of his book club. (read more)

Alex McCullie

pdf: Pew Forum comment (right-click to save)

Pew Forum Transcript

At a 2007 Pew Forum Faith Angle Conference, Wilfred (Bill) McClay, a professor of intellectual history, argues that US-style secularism is a highly successful mixture of minimal church-state separation and the active participation of religions in society and politics to provide the necessary moral compass. US secularism values individuality through free expression and free association over secular public policy. He calls this Political Secularism. By contrast McClay characterises and almost demonises the European alternative, Philosophical Secularism, as creating social environment essentially hostile to public expression of faith. Throughout his presentation McClay equates this type of secularism with ‘religions are poisonous’-type comments attributed to the so-called new atheists. McClay continues his anti-secular stance with his suggestion that the “higher reaches of securalism…[has]…begun to exhaust itself intellectually”.

According to The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faith by Gerald Benedict, a religious studies lecturer, “a truly secular culture is not anti-religious, but creates the free space in which religions of every kind can benefit from the free choice people make, uninfluenced by established and official policy. A truly secular society is an ‘open’ and pluralistic society.” This is how most Australians and Western Europeans see secularism. However many conservative religionists see institutionalising non-faith governments and public education as an anathema. Instead of offering freedom to make private religious or non-religious choices, they take a “for or agin” attitude expecting their faith to take precedence over the lives of others. In Australia and Europe they represent only a small but unfortunately vocal and very well organised minority.

Compared to Australian and European perspectives McClay advocates a minimalist version of secularism - one that we may not even call secular. With just enough separation between church and the US federal government required by the constitution, US offers an open competitive market of religions, typically Protestant, vying for social and political influence and control. McClay doubts whether Islam would support the individualistic approach required to fit within such as system. Religions are also seen as the major contributors to the moral values of the US society. Much to the amusement and concern around the world, a US president has even declare publicly a personal communication with his god supporting a foreign war.

I agree with McClay that a US style secularism isn’t transportable to another culture even though he hints that Turkey may benefit. I question, though, whether or not it is superior to the secularism as implemented in Western Europe. His presentation suggests he holds that belief.

So, does the US style active participation of religions in society lead to a more humane society? Put simply none of the happiness surveys and crime statistics support this claim. It appears that the greater support offered by the more secular governments of Europe, Australia and New Zealand, for example, leads to happier and more contented lives than those experienced in the US. Australia has a national health insurance scheme that provides protection of all citizens regardless of financial circumstances. Similarly our government provides social services benefits for the most vulnerable of our society including the unemployed, single parents and permanently disabled. Many argue that it is not enough support, but it provides good security for all citizens. Interestingly, other surveys throughout the world suggest that there is a broad correlation between higher levels of discretionary non-belief and greater personal security (Zuckerman 2007).

The presentation is explicitly supporting high levels of religious involvement in society and politics while acknowledging there should a minimal level of state-church separation. I’d questioned the way McKay has presented the US approach and his implied degradation of the European alternative. Presented to a faith conference so I’m not totally surprised by the uncritical questioning and responses to McKay’s propositions.

© 2008 Alex McCullie

References

Benedict, G. 2008, The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faiths, Watkins Publishing, London

Zuckerman, P. 2007, ‘Atheism Contemporary Numbers and Patterns’, in Martin, M. (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

The short answer is no, just an uneasy truce. Scientists agree to not declare the “resurrection” and other miracles as highly improbable, unsupported by evidence and contradictory to all other known physical principles. Similarly many religionists accept scientific theories (partially) and not engage in war against science, while still maintaining traditional creeds of god created all things and gave human beings everlasting souls. This is my very sceptical view of the broad “understanding”.

Science and religion seek to explain our existence and the world about us. Science uses empirically-based evidence to provide physical explanations for our world. Religions use ancient texts and interpretations by religious leaders and intellectuals to impart their vision of god’s will for us and our world. Given changes in scientific knowledge, religions may re-interpret their sacred texts to be more acceptable or simply deny science and retain their ancient explanations.

Science assumes a strictly physical reality that displays a non-designed regularity that can be understood. Science investigates the world with a bottom-up approach so it examines the parts to understand the whole - so-called reductionism. Moreover science encourages skeptical thinking by seeing all knowledge as provisional. Over the last 500 years science has proved amazingly successful at explaining our world by using this empirically-based research, disciplined testing and regular peer reviews. Many superstitions have been replaced by scientific explanations.

Religions assume that all existence has a purpose and that we, as humans, have special significance. Typically an all powerful entity exists in the non-physical reality but created all things in our physical one. Humans, unlike all other living things, exist in both worlds with non-physical souls and a physical body. Most religions use ancient texts and later interpretations to describe the world, its origins and as well as human purposes. Believers are expected to have faith - belief without evidence - that these words were written by people and inspired by god. Even though many people see some of the religious stories as metaphorical or naive inventions of earlier civilisations, conservative believers still take these stories as literal truth.

When religions talk about god and even souls there is probably no clashing with science. However when religions make pronouncements about the physical world - as they must to have any relevance - then they are on science’s patch. Scientific methods can be used to check the likelihood of religious physical claims. Not surprisingly this creates flash-points of dispute. Some obvious examples come to mind. Firstly, there is no independent physical evidence that any miracles - violations of natural laws - have occurred. Also, secondly, Evolution presents enormous metaphysical problems for most religions. All life evolved naturally; our existence came by chance; and humans are like other living things and therefore unlikely to have non-physical aspects such as souls are some of the obvious implications. Everyday, finally, neuroscience is chipping away at the sanctity of a separate mind with physical descriptions of our mental processes.

Technically religions and science could exist in parallel if religions never talked about the physical world and science continues to ignore any non-physical existence. Unfortunately, as even the religious leaders know, the physical reality affects our everyday concerns. Talking about gods, ghosts and spirits without mentioning our actual physical world is of little practical interest to anyone.

Alex McCullie

“Abandonment of one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.”
http://answers.com - online encyclopedia

Article 18.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

However many religious leaders and followers see apostasy as a criminal offence and even punishable by death. It is particularly so in Islamic countries even democracies like Malaysia. From a recent Economist article:

In Malaysia, people who try to desert Islam can face compulsory “re-education”. Under the far harsher regime of Afghanistan, death for apostasy is still on the statute book, despite the country’s American-backed “liberation” from the tyranny of the Taliban. The Western world realised this when Abdul Rahman, an Afghan who had lived in Germany, was sentenced to die after police found him with a Bible. After pressure from Western governments, he was allowed to go to Italy. What especially startled Westerners was the fact that Afghanistan’s parliament, a product of the democracy for which NATO soldiers are dying, tried to bar Mr Rahman’s exit, and that street protests called for his execution.
Economist: “Islam and apostasy, In death’s shadow” Jul 24th 2008

And another story from Iran:

Iran – Saeed Salman

“The Salman family’s five-year fight to stay in the United States ended on March 3, 2005, when the United States Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review in Chicago granted the family political asylum.
“In this case, I am persuaded that apostasy in Iran is punishable by death,” Judge Craig Zerbe said in the ruling. “As far as the sincerity of their conversion, I note that the respondents are found to be credible.””
story posted at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty website

Finally some useful links:

Promoting Islamic religious tolerance

Detailed analysis on apostasy in Islam

Apostates of Islam - from the perspectives of those who have left

Qur’anic interpretation by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

Alex McCullie

These are not true…

• A nasty, vicious lion stalks, attacks and murders a poor defenceless antelope on an ‘Animal Planet’ documentary.

• My cat loves me. He knows when I’m upset and will deliberately comfort me.

• Selfish genes behave immorally.

• The Earth is a living thing just like us.

Empathy is one of the great strengths to have evolved in humans. Our ability to see from someone else’s point of view forms the basis of social and moral behaviour. Wonderfully, this is all done subconsciously. Subsequent moral discussions are mostly rationalisations justifying these intuitive responses. (Steven Pinker http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html)

But here’s the rub. We apply this empathy to other things – living and non-living – in unhelpful ways. People believe they can see the world as a non-human would. Recently, a friend told me that he could genuinely imagine the world as seen by a bat. This belief has benefits, of course. We are more likely to respect other living and non-living things (Gaia, for example), if we see them as “like us”. Unfortunately, however, we also can moralise about animal behaviour, seeking to punish as if animals are free moral agents with responsibility. Again, all is done subconsciously. So, lions are not nasty; cute looking dears are not innocent; cats don’t love; genes are not morally selfish and Earth is not alive like us. As an aside, biologists, like Richard Dawkins, often refer to observed behaviour metaphorically. So behaviour can be described a selfish or altruistic without any moral implications.

The bottom line is we should be aware that living things (and non-living for that matter) have no natural or moral purposes. They just evolved to what they are today and will continue to do so. Evolutionary processes are blind and uncaring and putting chance aside, they reward (non-morally) characteristics leading to successful reproduction and punish (again, non-morally) those that don’t. As suggested in Pinker’s article, even our moral attitudes can be seen to have developed in a similar way.

Don’t get me wrong. We shouldn’t use this awareness as an excuse to ignore the problems we create for all livings things and for the planet. Our capacity to see and remedy problems beyond conflicting immediate needs may be our true greatness.

© 2008 Alex McCullie

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23918139-25132,00.html

Kevin Hart, US Profession of Theology, criticises the new atheists – the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger and Daniel Dennett – in his recent review of atheist books (The Australian 2 July 2008). He criticises these writers on a number of fronts. Firstly, they deliberately attack an archaic view of God as easy targets. Today’s faithful are more sophisticated with softer, more benign views of God. Secondly, terrorists like the 9/11 attackers are wrongly claimed to be motivated by faith. Hart counters that it’s much more to do with politics. Finally, atheists wrongly invoke science and the scientific method to challenge the validity of religious beliefs.

Hart presents a modernised, non-anthropomorphic God as the majority view. His God is a “free creator”, “behind nature”, “uncreated being”, “created the world” and “pure ‘to be’”. Curiously his “our father” re-introduces a more familiar patriarchal vision. The latest Pew US Survey (2007) presents a different picture. Everyday believers apparently hold more traditional views than promoted by Hart with 60% believing in a personal God; 74% in heaven; and 59% in hell. Even the holy books are seen as the word of God (63%) with 33% of responders believing in their literal truth. Hart’s claim that holy books are seen as purely “writing poetry” is simply not true.

The motivations of religious extremists are hotly debated. Most commentators, though, don’t portray them as pursuing strictly political agendas. Faith plays an important role. There seems little doubt that the 9/11 attackers saw themselves as “warriors” for Islam at the same time as fulfilling political objectives. Their faith added passion and commitment to their violence just as faith can encourage great sacrifices for worthy causes. Conveniently Hart discounts the clear pronouncements of faith by Islamic extremists as those of not the truly faithful.

Despite shortcomings science and other empirically-based areas of human study have proven to be our most successful ways of producing reliable knowledge about our physical world. As religions regularly make claims involving the physical, science has a valid and vital role in checking their veracity. So ‘historical existence of Jesus Christ’, ‘resurrection of Christ’ and so on should all be open to scientific and historical research independent of people’s faith. This is especially true when religious academics say such things as “resurrection of Jesus is a compelling 97 per cent probable”. In this situation I’d expect overwhelming secular evidence to support such a statement. We should see that simply combining material from religious sources with some intricate logical arguments is not enough for the claim to be proved.

Finally I disagree with Kevin Hart in the characterisation of people today in Western Europe and Australia as “indifferent”. I believe “irrelevant” might be a better term to represent people’s attitudes towards religious belief. Religions thrive in areas of low personal security and where people feel personally threatened. Governments in Western Europe and Australia provide environments that are less precarious and more stable. The need for supernatural reassurance seems more and more irrelevant to their lives.

© 2008 Alex McCullie