A somewhat more philosophical post than I usually do… I wrote this up during an exchange w/ a theologian differentiating two ways we can gain knowledge.
To a theologian:
Let’s start with mathematical truths — I think that they are true and in a very real sense constitute knowledge. Knowledge about something that is abstract, however. One of the features of abstract subjects, in my view, is that it is quite possible to make real progress in them without new inputs. Euler, an amazing mathematician, placed in a shielded box and given enough time could make real progress in mathematics.
I mean this to contrast methods of inquiry about external reality. When it comes to external reality — how stars work, the rules that govern the motions of the planets, etc., a physicist in a box could make lots and lots of models and guesses and arguments… but, unless he re-analyzes data from before he came into the box, he won’t make progress in physics.
For example, Einstein, with the data of Mercury’s weird orbit and the results from Michelson, could be put in a box, and with enough thinking could come up with General Relativity.
However, Einstein, placed in a box before the first experiments in quantum mechanics were done, would never end up concluding quantum mechanics. He might, given infinite time, detail hundreds of thousands of possible physics on small scales that includes our modern conception of QM, but he would be in no position to choose one from the others with any confidence at all. He might even pick what he thinks is the most beautiful physics at small scales, but what counts is not beauty or arguments, per se, but whether his physics matches reality.
That brings me to what I think is our main point of conflict between our approaches.
I fully acknowledge that progress can be made in all areas of mathematics and much of philosophy from internal reflection and argument without any new data coming into a person’s head. When a person thinks that this abstract knowledge can tell us something specific about external reality, the existence of God for example, they are simply making a category error.
Can theology reason out the attributes of what would be a perfect being? Sure. Can abstract reasoning alone tell us something about external reality? Possibly… although I’m having a hard time thinking of an example where it’s happened before.
Keep thinking about the difference between math and physics. If you wander too far away from direct measurement and experience, you can do a lot of work, and convince yourself of quite a lot… although you won’t learn much about external reality.
I’m not expecting this to be unanimously agreed upon — comments?
Tonight, I went to a three-hour meeting of Christian graduate students and professors who were discussing the “Sam Harris vs. Philip Ball” blog-debate that occurred over Ball’s editorial in Nature. A full recap of the Harris-Ball interaction is available on The Reason Project’s site: http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/what_should_science_dosam_harris_v_philip_ball/
I was the only atheist in attendance, and it was held at a Christian’s house, hence the post title. I was invited to listen and provide an atheist perspective to what they were talking about. It was really interesting to listen to Christians talk about what they thought the “science vs. faith” debate between the two atheists meant.
The group was entirely academics (PHDs or soon to be) in various subjects: chemistry, neuro-linguistics, anthropology, philosophy of science, biology; and from various indications it looked their beliefs in things like the scientific method, human evolution, big bang cosmology, and those kinds of issues were not in conflict with current scientific consensus. They were disheartened that such a high percentage of US adults believed in divine human creation (over 40%) in favor of darwinian evolution.
A number of comments that they said amazed or amused me:
One biologist marveled at the internal struggle a serious archeologist must have in also being a Mormon. — As though a biologist could accept the physical resurrection of Jesus without internal conflict.
In the context of subsaharan Africa, another was saddened that the Christians there had enough faith to believe that the power of prayer could actually heal people of AIDS, because these faithful people would then stop taking their medicines…
Another lamented that Christians are calling children witches in Africa, as well.
In short, it appeared to me that as far as what a hardcore rational atheist would hope for in people who persisted in being serious Christians: these were the best you could find. And don’t get me wrong, they were all serious and committed Christians (and yet far from agreeing with Bishop Shelby Spong on almost anything).
It was also interesting to me to finally hear an example of “the difficulty of coming out as a Christian” especially in context of being a professionally tricky thing to do — and for me to believe them.
The content of the discussion was useful. Many of the people in the room had read the entire Harris-Ball blog-debate and had printed, annotated copies on their laps as we discussed it (I mentioned they were academics, right?).
In the beginning, people were convinced that Harris was being stridently scientismy or arguing something akin to: “If you disagree with me, then you’re being irrational. By the way, I decide.”
I worked on that impression for a while, stating what I considered Harris’ main contention is intellectual honesty — it’s ok not to know something, and to mention that you don’t know. And that the best method that we have for making progress on any topic is intellectually honest human conversation (and thus, should be promoted). Also, the only reason Ball’s writing was on Harris’ radar was that Nature (prestigious science journal) had given press, again, to obsessive deference to religious superstition.
It was a long meeting (3 hours), food was served, lots of discussion, and I convinced everyone in attendance to become atheists. Just kidding on that last bit.
At the end of the night, I think people agreed with several of the goals of the Reason Project in several ways:
1. It’s useful to question beliefs that you hold and the reasons for holding them — and this kind of thinking should be promoted.
2. Religious beliefs should not be sheltered from criticism any more than any other belief.
Tempers never flared, everyone had a pleasant evening, and I think I got across how at least I think about these issues in ways I don’t think they had considered.
Ok, finally… I was so close for so long. I have the new site layout pretty much finished (I think).
Let me know if you see some obvious mistakes when you’re clicking around, and let me know what you think of the redesign. If you are reading this through an RSS feed, come check out the site.
Now, as to not disappoint with a mere “Theme update” post, I’ll throw in a few quick thoughts about the following youtube video:
This guy’s name is Chad — youtube handle: “RationalResponder” and he’s a protege of Ray Comfort — and it shows.
He analyzes a question he hears from atheists that goes something like, “Do you actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that a guy lived in a fish for a few days?”
His 1, 2, switcheroo argument/tactic summarized:
1. Agree with the skeptic that these miraculous events are miraculous.
2. Claim that the skeptic misrepresents Christianity if he thinks that there is a naturalistic explanation for the miraculous events.
The question asked by the skeptic, somehow, is a misrepresentation of Christianity, because Christianity has always said that the supernatural was involved with these miracles!
Switcheroo: Can you give me one reason why God, the creator of the universe, wouldn’t be able to alter His creation in any way He sees fit?
First of all, I don’t know a single person who thinks that Christians believe that miracles happened via natural means. There can be misrepresentations of what Christians believe, but this is just not one I have ever come across.
Second, I’m not sure that Chad wants to claim this method of thinking in his daily life. Is he suggesting that he believes any and every supernatural claim ever made because, well, God could do anything? My guess is that he has a fair amount of skepticism to any number of supernatural claims that I might make off the top of my head. Like, God caused rocks in my backyard to levitate during my childhood as long as no one was observing them, for example.
Would Chad ask me why I believed that? — If he did, and I answered, “Well, you are misrepresenting my belief in rock-levitation by asking for a naturalistic cause — or, perhaps you can give me a reason why God, creator of the universe, wouldn’t be able to cause rocks to levitate?” do you think he’d be satisfied?
Let me know your thoughts on the new theme; and on Chad’s youtube video and what response you might take if he responded to you that way.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b8f35b7f-4c01-4a7b-aee5-91edfce23a1b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c89d5bd1-38d8-462d-a43c-817d6a4ee0ca)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fe376486-9ba5-4c79-be52-5af13f5715dd)
