Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

One of the great challenges for intellectual thought is resolving the apparent dissonance between our rich inner lives in which we play starring roles, our first person view, and our relative insignificance in the external world, the third-person view.

Religions have attempted the resolution by positing real external analogues of our inner world. Separate non-physical personalities, with intentionality and purpose, like human-type god or gods, evil and good spirits, existent heaven and hell, and angels are comforting projections of our internal world onto an indifferent, largely inanimate world, thereby harmonising it with our internal lives. To be credible, though, these projections needed to be consistent with our every-day perceptions. So they had to be invisible and physically indetectable, essential qualities for any credibility. Religions then relied on human wish-fulfilment to take care of the rest.

Philosophy similarly has struggled with this first-person/third-person dichotomy with dualisms, idealism and realism/anti-realism, mind-body problems and conflicts between free-will and causal determinism to name a few. As an example, the mind-body problem seems to revolve around two questions. Firstly, how can a purely physical explanation of the brain, chemicals, electricity, neurons firing, truly reflect my rich inner life, and, secondly, how does a separate consciousness, sounding similar to religious-like projections, actually manipulate the physical body, without resorting to another higher-order projection like god?

The sciences, on the other hand, avoid the problem by simply taking a third-party view with humans being part, often small, of a much broader reality.  Look at cosmology to see our relative insignificance. So most sciences are not in the first-person business, though, perhaps, psychology sits part-way in the continuum. The success, credibility and consequent influence of science have created serious problems for human-centred explanations from religion and philosophy. Today most people live in a truly scientific-world view, at least in the countries of Western Europe as well as Australia, New Zealand and US to name a few.

The problem for religions and philosophy, in their 2500 to 4500 years of effort, is that they have been remarkably unsuccessful at solving the dilemma. At the same time science with its strictly third-party perspective has been devastatingly successful over the last 200 years at telling more about the world we inhabit. This assessment is based on science’s ability to generate reliable knowledge. Criticisms, often from religious and philosophical sources, about uses of the resulting technologies seem irreverent to this assessment. Human uses of the knowledge genuinely raise important issues to be addressed separately.

Therefore we need to change our reliance of the authenticity of our inner first person to meet new realities of the twenty-first century. We should question whether god or gods, consciousness, soul, free-will, morality, spirituality and the mind are simply constructs, rather than separate ontological realities, to make an indifferent physical reality seem more palatable to over-inflated senses of self-worth.

Alex McCullie

PS Try this thought experiment. What was God doing more than 150,000 years ago before any recognisable humans evolved on this planet? Did morality, angels, satan, the Word, after Earth’s formation? Or could they simply be our creations?

Lawrence Krauss in his Internet article God and Science Don’t Mix argues that there are fundamental incompatibilities between science and religion in seeking explanations to the world. He also argues that it is quite rational (and reasonable) for scientists to apply materialist techniques from scientific research to existence in general. Science has been so successful at producing reliable knowledge so it seems reasonable to apply similar (no God) approaches to life in general. Even religious scientists seem to face conflicts on specifics in this area. In a panel with two highly-regarded religious scientists, Krauss described how he posed to them how they reconcile the virgin birth with basic knowledge of biology. They attempted to describe the birth as having important mythic qualities but presented no explicit defense of this core Roman Catholic belief.

See my previous post on this topic.

Alex McCullie

Two popular “science versus religion” debates have raged recently in blogland. Firstly, science is accused of having an atheistic agenda by excluding supernatural explanations in its purview. Secondly, some historians have weighed into the debate by saying that the traditional conflicts between science and religion have been grossly exaggerated.

Despite many writers emphasising the ability of science and religion to coexist, I see science and religion as fundamentally incompatible and likely to clash when attempting to explain the same phenomena.  I should clarify that by “science” I am referring to a diverse range of secular research activities from physics to history, and, importantly, where there are no theological imperatives.

Over the last 500 years science has embodied a naturalistic or materialistic methodology, in which scientific research seeks physical explanations using observations and reason.  Prior to the enlightenment thinkers and scientists like Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton saw scientific research as a means of discovering God through his work in nature – a sort of natural theology. Since then, however, science has moved towards a secular approach indifferent to any supernatural beliefs. So, despite critics attempting to brand science as atheistic, methods of science work independently of religious beliefs rather than denying them. Scientific knowledge is built on empirical research with mathematical and logical reasoning. Despite all its failings, science tends to be open, self-critical and, therefore, self-correcting.

Religion derives its explanations from revealed knowledge – scriptures and interpretations by religious fathers and authorities – combined with personal reflection and feelings. More than science, religion emphasises tradition and continuity, where religions comfortably base current day prescriptions on sacred texts often thousands of years old. By contrast science emphasises new knowledge and new developments where a 2000 year old scientific work may be admired as an interesting curiosity. It would not be taken as having any scriptural authority. So scientific thinking has much less respect for the past than the revered approaches taken by most religions.

Many have argued the philosophical merits of science taking a physical approach to its research and avoiding and supernatural explanation. Put simply, the underlying assumption of science that all things are knowable in theory contradicts religion’s comfortable embrace of the “mystery”. However I prefer pointing to the success of the scientific project. No other method offers anything comparable to producing reliable human knowledge. Our lives inexorably depend on and have been improved by the understanding and technology that flow from scientific endeavours.

Clashes between science and religion are inevitable. Science provides natural descriptions and explanations of our world. More and more science explores all aspects of our existence, even areas seen as traditionally inaccessible such as mind-body dilemma and human moral behaviour. By contrast religions provide prescriptions and explanations claimed from divine authorities through sacred ancient texts, inspired historical and modern-day interpretations and appeals to personal feelings and reflections. As science seeks to provide natural explanations for religious “mysteries” and thereby directly threaten religious beliefs, there will be clashes. The on-going evolution verses creation debates exemplify this type of conflict and that will continue on many other issues as well. One can imagine clashes will continue over human morality and free-will as well  human similarities to other animals to name only a few.

Finally people should to actively resist any attempt to “infect” science with religious beliefs. Deferring to religious mysteries and sensibilities will impede the independence and progress of science and return science and our thinking to being the “hand-maiden” of particular religious traditions. Simply put, science does not need religion and is infinitely better off without it. We should resist its intrusions where ever possible.

Alex McCullie

As our view of the world becomes more physical and more causal, our understanding becomes less friendly to a free-wheeling God that seeks to operate outside of this realm. Well, that is until we discovered the craziness of the sub-atomic world of Quantum theory. This world offers new meanings to remote influencing, time travel and multiple space occupation by one thing not to speak of probablistic causality. For the religiously and mystically inclined this is “manor from heaven” (sorry for the pun) for God, consciousness, and, in fact, any new-age force or energy.

Here is an opinion piece from New Scientist along the same critical lines.

Alex McCullie

I recommend Darwin The Disturber, an article by well-known US author Susan Jacoby.

I struggle to understand responses of many liberal religious people to evolution. They accept that evolution best explains through physical processes the development of all living things including humans. However these same people want to exempt our sense of consciousness and “spirituality” from evolution by claiming these charactistics result not from naturalistic evolution but from the addition of some mysterious, undetectable force or intelligence.

So for billions of years the evolutionary processes took their meandering, undirected courses and then in the last few minutes, relatively speaking, a supernatural process intercedes to inject humans with consciousness and/or spirituality, that allows us to have a special connection with the divine.

Please give me a break! Ironically I have more respect for the evolution-deniers who attempt to reject the whole idea of evolution. At least they are more consistent in their beliefs even though totally misguided.

Alex McCullie

Pew has a series of reports about Evolution and Religion in the US as part of Darwin’s 150 years celebrations (opening summary screen). Evolutionary theory, though accepted by the vast majority scientists in the field, continues to be rejected by many Christians (and other religious believers) in the US as contrary to own religious stories. This is so even though so many religious organisations like the Roman Catholic church have adopted at least a partial acceptance with typically that evolution is part of God’s plan.

Religious leaders now explain that God works behind the scenes through complicated, convoluted evolutionary processes rather than simply creating the species as required. On that basis there’s been a major re-interpretation of scriptures turning readings from literal to metaphorical – the more metaphorical the better if you ask me. Incidently the very large and powerful South Baptist Convention simply rejects evolution outright.

Here’s a denomination-by-denomination breakdown of support (or lack of) across the US:

Alex McCullie

Sense About Science website is promoting their Celebrities and Science Review 2008 listing ridiculous unscientific claims made by celebrities and politicians. The Independent newspaper highlights some amusing findings, such as:

Mr Obama and John McCain blundered into the MMR vaccine row during their presidential campaigns. “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate,” said President-elect Obama. “Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” he said.

His words were echoed by Mr McCain. “It’s indisputable that [autism] is on the rise among children, the question is what’s causing it,” he said. “There’s strong evidence that indicates it’s got to do with a preservative in the vaccines.”

Exhaustive research has failed to substantiate any link to vaccines or any preservatives. The rise in autism is thought to be due to an increased awareness of the condition.

or…

Sarah Palin, Mr McCain’s running mate, waded into the mire with her dismissal of some government research projects. “Sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not,” Ms Palin said. But the geneticist Ellen Solomon takes Ms Palin to task for not understanding the importance of studies into fruit flies, which share roughly half their genes with humans. “They have been used for more than a century to understand how genes work, which has implications in, for example, understanding the ageing process,” she said.

or…

Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all espoused the idea that you can detoxify your body with either diet (scientifically unsupportable) or, in the case of Moore, products such as “highly trained medical leeches” which make you bleed. Scientists point out that diet alone cannot remove toxins and that blood itself is not a toxin, and even if it did contain toxins, removing a little bit of it is not going to help.

and finally…

But top prize went to the lifestyle guru Carole Caplin for denouncing a study showing that vitamin supplements offer little or no health benefits as “rubbish” – it is the third year on the run that she has been mentioned in the review. Science author and GP Ben Goldacre pointed out that the study Ms Caplin referred to was the most authoritative yet published. “Carole should understand that research can often produce results which challenge our preconceptions: that is why science is more interesting than just following your nose,” Dr Goldacre said. (full article from The Independent)

Alex McCullie

Christian bookshops are keen to sell the Expelled DVD that is supposed to highlight the unfair favouring of evolution over the overtly religious creationism, now neatly re badged as Intelligent Design avoiding US Constitutional problems. The smart ideas of design are being expelled from the classroom by scientists and educators. Here’s an introduction by Christian Cinema.

Intelligent Design (ID), the ultimate oxymoron, keeps raising its ugly head. Instead of pontification about unsupported religious origin-beliefs, let’s see some real evidential support from the design supporters who want to be treated seriously. Evolution is one of most supported scientific theories of all time with numerous academic papers yearly in the most world’s most-respected scientific journals. Let the supporters of the ID achieve something similar and earn the right to be treated as scientific instead of being simply shouting about thinly disguised religious beliefs.

Mainstream scientists would welcome an alternate theory to evolution if it has stronger evidential support. There is nothing religious in science’s backing of evolution – it’s simply the best supported by a considerable margin. However we are yet to see the supporters of the various design beliefs present any sort of broad-based evidential support

Here’s an Expelled debunking site – Expelled Exposed.

Alex McCullie

Here’s another video demonstrating Sarah Palin’s fitness to be the next US Vice President – perhaps not.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-palin-wants-help-special-ne

Alex McCullie

200 years after Darwin’s birth and 150 years after the publication of On Origin of the the Species we expected press articles, new books and television shows on evolution. And, guess what, they have started and, of course, the vexed question of its relationship with religion arises.

The Church of England posted an article by Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs entitled Good religion needs good science where Brown admits some church people may have been mistaken in attacking Darwin’s ideas in the mid 19th century. However he spends most of the article attacking Social Darwinism which he implies is a natural outcome of scientific atheism through the misuse evolutionary theory to promote moral improvement through social engineering. I’ll discuss his article more below.

Also the Roman Catholic Church again acknowledges the validity of a religious version of evolution, theistic evolution, and denies the literal truth of the Genesis creation stories (articles: Roman Catholic response (via Reuters), Comment on apologies). However BBC News has an article about creationism in the UK – it may be more widespread than generally thought (British creationists – BBC News).

Back to Rev Brown’s article about good religion and good science. He equates evolution offering some sort of implicit moral progress. This is one of the great myths about evolution perpetuated by allies and opponents alike. There is no sense of progress in the evolutionary theory - all living things including humans develop through chance and adaption to the environments. As environments change, then successions of living things adapt in different ways. Chance comes from environmental changes, reproduction and mutations. Evolution unlike religious practices has no sense of intentionality – no overall purposes or goals. It is a combination of blind processes that acts like a “blind watchmaker” to use Richard Dawkin’s word play on William Paley. So there is no moral dimension to evolutionary processes nor is there any sense of progress to higher life forms nor is there any superiority of one species over any other. On the other hand I would argue that Christianity has traditionally promoted all of these ideas. Despite Brown’s claims about the easy misuse of science, most religious supporters have had no problems applying social engineering on others for the “greater good”. But, of course, this was justified as doing God’s work.

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned
(Mark 16:15-16)

Alex McCullie