God's place in a rational world

Daniel - Nov 10, 2007 - Philosophy Science

The editorial for this week's New Scientist raises an interesting question, although Jeremy Webb's opinion is not one I share. "The idea that science can replace religion in the public consciousness is not only fanciful", he states, "it's also bad for science". The article which proceeds from this is entitled God's place in a rational world, and is written by Michael Reilly. The bulk of the conclusions he makes are as follows:

Human rights are purely metaphysical. Similar to religion, it is not possible to do a CT scan and isolate the area of our brains responsible for rights, values, etc.

Despite our limited knowledge of the human brain, this point is largely true. However, the difference between human rights and religious doctrine is its ability and necessity to adapt. Two hundred years ago, women did not have the right to vote: since then we have not evolved the ability to see our error, nor has a divine entity commanded us to change. We have simply realised that our ideas of human rights have been flawed, and likely always will be - thus we should seek to improve them whenever possible. This method of trial and improvement ties in far more closely to the scientific method than the principles of religion. While most religious principles are agreeable, they are also idealist - and in many cases they are designed to be taken literally in today's age, despite a basis on a long gone society of the past. Whether our minds are designed - or more appropriately evolved - with 'built-in' human rights is irrelevant: the point is that we have the capacity for it. This is the same for any abstract concept; science, religion, morality, and to say that we should respect all of them because of this is absurd. We may have the capacity in our mind for wrongdoing and maliciousness, but that is not to say that they are in any way positive things.

"People are irrational by nature ... faith, religion, culture and emotion must also be recognised as part of the human condition"

People are not irrational by nature, they are irrational because they have been indoctrinated with irrational ideas. Besides, accepting irrationality before rationality is a fallacy - obviously it is presently impossible to explain every concept; these we dub "irrational". However once they are explained, it would be absurd to revert to more primitive resolutions. History has proved this fact; we are not standing on a flat planet for the same reason. One of the problems with religion is that it is inherently irrational - Christianity, for example, puts a large emphasis on blind faith, but seeks to call itself rational (which seems to defy the point somewhat). It promotes anti-knowledge in many areas, which is both counter intuitive and doomed to failure as time passes. It is for this reason that religion is often so heavily criticised: rather than accepting new truths, it relies on dogma, and when time and knowledge overtake it, it is left fighting an impossible battle: whether to accept only some scientific truths and battle the rest, or accept all of them and lose integrity as a result. Looking at religion through time, it is simple to see that each becomes more and more rational as time goes on; the faithful today are satisfied that neither the weather nor the sun are divine beings, and that Mount Olympus is home to only flora, rocks and ice. It is certainly the natural progression of religion to gain rationality. So why attempt to avoid it, or criticise those who simply wish to speed up the process?

Fact based knowledge can never provide all the answers - "Reason is an insufficiant guide"

I will concede upon this point - but if it is not reason to which we turn, it should be our own instinct - or the instincts of those we trust - rather than the teachings of those who lived hundreds or even thousands of years ago. The fact is, we will likely apply our own bias to the guidings of religion anyway - so why not miss out the buffer of holy texts and teachings, and simply make moral decisions on our own? This is even more pertinent when considering how our society should be run: even if religious methods worked in the past, the context is entirely inappropriate for the modern day, and we are left with sets of laws which only loosely fit our ideas of a functioning community - many of which are even against the human rights we have developed over our many years of existence.

Irrational methods of studying literature, enjoying music and conducting conversation are all appropriate in our lives - but religion, and the irrationality it prescribes, needs to catch up and most importantly make itself more compatible with modern humans' ideas of reality. There is always a place for irrational thought, but when it is superseded by rationality it becomes immediately redundant, and no longer important in determining anything of great consequence.

JGraham

I think you're making two mistakes here, both involving the idea of rationality. One is the implicit belief that humans are naturally rational. I believe you say we are only irrational because we have been taught irrational dogmas. Sad fact is that humans are NOT naturally rational, a good century of psychology and the utter failure of classical economics(which relies on 'rational agents') to describe our world are good proofs of that fact. This type of irrationality has nothing to do with religion, but it leads to my next point and I think your next assumption that might not be true: religion's relationship with rationality(or irrationality) is not as clearcut as it seems.

Now, I won't blame you for a hundred or so similar comments, but the fact is there are far more religious people out there that are NOT fundamentalists than there are fundamentalists. If you want to have a theory of religion that explains them, that theory also needs to explain the majority of Christians that don't believe in a 7 day creation, do believe in evolution, etc.

The irrationality prescribed by these mainstream christians is far closer to the irrationality of Satre than it is of just plain being stupid. Without God, they say, there is no value. This is a powerful thought whether God exists or not.

Daniel

You're right that I'm biasing the article on what I've heard of fundamentalists; I'll admit, I've met plenty of Christians who are extremely moderate in their beliefs - the concept of a god still seems unnecessary to me though.

When I said that people weren't irrational by nature, I didn't mean to imply that they were rational as a result. It seems to me that after being born, you're pretty much an empty page as far as beliefs (or tendency towards beliefs) are concerned. I'm also generalising when I talk about people being irrational, what I really meant was their beliefs. Notwithstanding - one of the points I hope to get across is that irrationality is only a good thing while it has a purpose. Religion has long outlived its purpose:

  • If you need religion for its moral values, it is certainly not the only source of inspiration - and definitely not a particulary good one.

  • If you need it for the community, there are other means without the added necessary beliefs.

  • If you need it, or rather want it, because you believe in a creator or a god (or any kind of deity) then you at least have an honest reason, but taking the word of tens and tens of generations about something like that seems absurd to me. I have no qualms with the possibility of a creator (or a creator race?), but the idea of a supernatural entity that supercedes science doesn't hold any ground with me. It just plain old doesn't make any sense - and if I was to tell you something equally as strange and improbable was true, I'm sure you'd see where I'm coming from.

Anyway, thanks for your comment, as you can tell this is a topic that interests me a lot.

S Hurdell

I find your comments to be absurdly irrational and the fact that this topic interests you a lot amazes me. If you don't believe in God and believe that His one religion, as I know that are a lot of spin-offs from it, has out lived it's usefulness why then do you wish to pursue irrationality or for that matter an entity that could not possibly exist in your mind. I myself have no problem with God's word, so I would take it in it's entirety. Those who pick and chose are lost to the world and of the world. Which brings to mind, did you base your decision in the full word of God or one of the spin-offs. Is it not usual for the scientific world to study in one specific area and learn a full understanding and disprove/prove another's finding to gain an overall view of each one? The word of God is as valid today as it was when first written. Do you actually believe that thousands of people would hold on to a doctrine for thousands of years if it was not so. The other side of the coin is those who are of this world. In your text, your idea of God is a non-entity that couldn't be identified scientifically yet there are also many so called, "verified by science" ideas that many people would tell you was bull and although they are not scientists, know by hands on experience. The reason for this being that scientists are like me a mere mortal and do not have the knowledge to all the intricacies of the atomic make-up of what this universe of ours involves. I have heard of times when something was announced to the world as a scientific breakthrough only to be later withdrawn because they had missed an unknown factor and who is to say how many factors that are not taken in to account so much of this so called scientific knowledge is still erroneous. Further to this, it sounds to me that what you are trying to say is that science has proven portions of the Bible to be true and therefore only that portion should be accepted and the rest of it discounted. Would that not be like saying that before scientists know more about the human anatomy and in internal organ or portion thereof that seemed to serve no portion should have been cut away for being useless. "One of the problems with religion is that it is inherently irrational-Christianity...", it is not christianity that I am concerned with as christianity is by mere mankind and therefore subject to man's fallacy, so if you are interested in christianity then, pardon my misunderstanding and you would then be right to a point. Jesus said: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of God." A child inherently knows God and Jesus further states that to be born again we must be re-born. So often the childlike nature is used as a standpoint to what is right, but you know that it is said that a little child cannot lie unless it is first taught. It is not an inherent nature of children to lie. My youngest son always told on his brothers, not by way of tattle-taling but just in conversation and his brothers would be so upset with him, so I had to explain that he was so young and innocent, he didn't know that anything was being done that wasn't suppose to be and he was just having idle conversation. I don't that children have blind faith but more of a perceived faith if they were to experience something para-normal. The blind faith comes from the older people who have never been introduced to the Lord for God says that those who refuse his being will be blinded to his word and cannot comprehend. It is well to search the word of God, but hopefully you will search in the right places because the devil comes in sheeps clothing to steal the soul of the unwary.

Daniel

It is mainly Christianity that interests me, yes - I used to be one, and was brought up one. You ask me why I want to pursue it - as a person of science yourself, you cannot discount humankind's interest in that which it does not understand. I am simply trying to grasp what is it that pervades so many people's minds.

"Did you base your decision in the full word of God or one of the spin-offs"

That's a difficult question to answer - what do you consider the full word of God? The Bible? You mention that Christianity has its flaws but then quote Jesus. I realise that there are many religions which recognise him as a prophet, but which are you aligned with?

To answer your question, I based my decision on the non existence of an all powerful entity such as God. My only source of information so far has been the Bible, but I know enough to say that no other holy text can offer me the rational explanation for god that I would need to change my mind. Before I go to far with this, I'll point out that I hoped to avoid the "Does God exist question" with my original article; obviously it's a question nobody can answer, and something people have to decide for themselves. I was hoping to focus on the necessity of religion, and its inability to remain at least for the most part rational -- but I'll continue to address the rest of your points.

"Do you actually believe that thousands of people would hold on to a doctrine for thousands of years if it was not so?"

Certainly. Patriarchal societies, human sacrifices amongst the Mayans, the beliefs of the ancient Greeks...

"Would that not be like saying that before scientists know more about the human anatomy and in internal organ or portion thereof that seemed to serve no portion should have been cut away for being useless?"

The opposite - if something is proven to have no purpose, then in many cases it is harmless, but if it does turn out to be a problem, then yes, perhaps it should be cut away. Take the appendix, for example.

"I don?t that children have blind faith but more of a perceived faith if they were to experience something para-normal"

There is nothing to a child - bar basic instincts - that is not 'para-normal'. Until a concept is explained to them, it is alien - thus it is only how it is explained that is of any importance to what they believe to be true.

Thanks for your comment - I enjoyed reading what you had to say, you make some intriguing points.