I realise that for any US politician to seriously court the US conservative vote, they have to ‘do the God thing’, but I cannot help wincing when I hear people like Sarah Palin, who I think has much to commend her, say things like “the United States should rededicate itself to seeking God’s will“… whatever the hell that means.
I think what really offends me most about this sort of proclamation is the notion of the need for ‘unity’ rather than just a simple commonality of interests: if I am going to support someone politically, I am damned if I will to seek in that politician an additive “whole world view”. If Sarah Palin wants to trim the intrusive regulatory state, as she seem to want to do, well that is splendid, but I would rather not hear about how she thinks others need to include some anthropomorphic psychological guy-in-the-sky construct in their decision making processes.
Perhaps it is my English sensibilities but I am deeply suspicious of anyone who cannot keep their religious sentiments to themselves. I am willing to tolerate the religious views of others but, like most vices, religion is something best practised behind closed doors with other consenting adults as can be very unedifying when indulged in public.
I have yet to fully think this through, but after living here for a while it seems to me that there are (at least) three types of religion in the USA, just as there are (at least) three types of patriotism (another area where overt public displays are frequently noticed).
1. The sincerely held belief. This need not require overt public displays.
2. The desire to “fit in” with one’s community. This most certainly does overt public displays, in parts of the USA at least.
3. A cheap marketing gimmick – you can sell any old rubbish if you stick Jesus or the flag on it.
Given that she is a politician, I wonder which of these types Palin is thinking of.
Most likely all three. The more interesting are the types she is ignoring and the question why.
Perry, you obviously know that purely logical arguments do not work in political campaigns. Mixing small government conservative/libertarian arguments with several themes that connect emotionally with voters is the ONLY way politicians who are ‘fellow travelers’ (as you have dubbed all those who seek to make government smaller) are going to get elected to significant offices in the USA.
Most people vote based largely on emotions and feelings. It should be obvious that in a country where the majority of citizens are Christian, appealing to God is one of the least bad ways (if not THE least bad way) to appeal to Americans’ emotions, given that it is practically a pre-req to being elected President.
By the way, for many Americans (including those our side needs to convince to get our fellow traveling politicians elected) voting for a politician who seeks to make government smaller is a HUGE change in perspective and is something of a leap of faith. Some God rhetoric helps connect with these (mostly religious) skeptics in Middle America.
“I am willing to tolerate the religious views of others …”
Strange statement for a libertarian. How could a person who claims to uphold the autonomy of the individual NOT be “willing to tolerate” others’ beliefs?
“… but, like most vices, religion is something best practised behind closed doors with other consenting adults as can be very unedifying when indulged in public.”
Substitute “homosexuality” for “religion” in that statement. Still happy with it? The desire to tell other human beings how to behave apparently burns bright, even in the libertarian heart.
As an aside, let’s never forget that much of what we know of public figures comes out of context through the deliberately distorting lens of the state-controlled media. Eh, Perry?
Well said
Yes indeed, but I do not have to find it edifying 😀
oh no
Sarah mentioned God
she is cunt
Not strange at all. Axiomatic in fact for the very reason you state.
Totally happy with it. I have no problem with people being homosexual, but I would rather not have a politician tell me that we need a smaller state and by the way, buggery is particular nice when your partner is bent over ‘like this’. Well great, if you say so, but please feel free not to share.
Then I think you misunderstand the libertarian heart. I am all for people being able to say what they wish, but that does not mean I need to sit idly by and not judge them by their words. When someone opens their yap in public, they are inviting me to both judge and respond to what they say. To be a libertarian is to support the right of people to chose and to be judged accordingly… all too many seem to fail to notice that last bit.
I dislike the notion that if I share some of Sarah Palin’s views, I should also be willing to embrace religious irrationalism, which I ain’t, and that is all I am saying.
Personally I see religion as a weakness of the mind, a psychological crutch, frankly, a vice… but as with most vices, I am not disputing people’s legal right to engage in them, but I would rather not have it thrust in my face. I am all for social drunkeness at times but that does not mean I find the sight of a reeling drunk lurching down the street singing sea shanties something I want to see.
Perry, not to worry. We Americans understand that public piety has nothing to do with religion: it’s just a sauce politicians put on their campaigns. Palin knows, and we know she knows, that she’s not going to govern as the first female Pope.
Yes indeed, ‘doing the god thing’. It still still makes me wince however, but then I am not her target audience.
It’s worse than that, she actually believes. Us proper thinking people would much prefer hypocrisy over genuine religious belief in our politicians.
Obama falling, Sarah rising.
Life is good!!!
“It’s worse than that, she actually believes. Us proper thinking people would much prefer hypocrisy over genuine religious belief in our politicians.”
Good point but difficult choice. I prefer people like Oliver Letwin who are prepared to say, with a cheeky grin, on Question Time “I have no faith. I am not a believer.” Or even Cameroon who made it pretty clear he was an atheist (by refusing to deny he was a Christian in the same way he refused to deny he’d never taken drugs). Or any number of other MPs.
Of course, there’s always the possibility he’s actually a devout Zionist hell-bent on some cunning plan to enslave us all or something, but I doubt it – I sent him an email to congratulate and his email sent a nice reply saying “thanks”.
Paul Johnson in his “History of the American People” is probably the first historian to properly notice something about modern (which is to say, post-1600-ish_ Americans, which is that they have always worn God on their sleeves, and quite consciously and on purpose.
Their whole founding rationale was based on being able to do this thing. Their emigrating forebears regarded our failure to do this properly as one principal reason for leaving us in the first place.
For Palin to invoke God in such a seemingly artless manner does not surprise me at all: neither, furthermore, did it surprise me when George (W) Bush admitted that he prayed. And neither did it surprise me when the chorus of howling GramscoFabiaNazis came out in derisive reply to this revelation.
Palin cleverly touches on the uncoscious but still embedded faith in God that’s part of “Middle-America”, however the place seems to look now. We cynical, Europeanised, worldly-wise and sophisticated-looking Anglo-Europeans (we ought to be careful) may sneer, but most Americans listening to her will not think it odd that she said what she did. I stand to be corrected by US readers, but that’s the feeling I get about this particular matter, fromthinking about the concept of “American”-ness.
I’m not saying that Perry was sneering here, far from it: but I agree that waering your religion as a public badge of some sort is not generally done here this side of the puddle. Perhaps it’s us that’s at fault.
But she didn’t say “I would like to re-dedicate myself to God”, or even that Americans would possibly gain much if they personally did. She said that the United States should – big difference. It sounds as if it’s not about wearing her beliefs on her sleeve but about making everyone else wear it. I truly hope she did not mean it.
Ooops, not just ‘God’, ‘God’s will’ – even worse. OTOH:
Alice has a good point there – it’s not like they didn’t do this to Palin before.
Not even, sorry, not especially if you’re the Primate of all England.
Primate of all England This is sooo good! I’m going to use it for our own PriMate…
Is anyone else bothered when good writers do the lazy thing rather than doing the bon mot thing and choose to sound like they’re doing the illiterate thing by using such ugly phrases as “doing the God thing”?
I am an atheist, bgates, of the indifferent shoulder-shrugging kind rather than the militant evangelical Dawkins kind, so I feel no need to debate or counter or overturn people’s religious views, because I just do not care about something that has no relevance in my view of the world. It is only when religion is actually politics (i.e. Islam) that I really pay much attention. And so when I say someone is “doing the god thing” in a speech, the many other secularist folk who share my sentiments know exactly what I am talking about.
It is that point in the speech by someone who we think may be a pro-liberty fellow traveller that we endure, rather than applaud. It is something that people like me who supported Reagan got down to a fine art… the point where we went to grab a coffee, estimating that by the time we got back, he would have returned to bashing the Evil Empire or making anti-statist quips that we could actually get behind once he had finished doing the required “god thing”.
Of course, there’s an even more juicy way to interpret this, as I’m sure some scurrilous headline copyists will:
“Palin wants to turn the USA into Iran”.
When I started my campaign, the very first question I was asked was “Do you believe in God?” This came from a local reporter. I answered the question honestly (yes), and continued on with the interview. He was not satisfied with the answer. He continued on to ask how my faith will effect my votes in the State House. My answer that I follow a “to each his own” policy when it comes to religion went over like a lead balloon with my constituency. I’m sure my opponent will start capitalizing on it soon enough.
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that when it comes to U.S. politics, religion will ALWAYS be one of the big 5 questions asked. By stating that she believes the U.S. should re-dedicate itself to seeking God’s will she would hardly offend anyone here…except for the extremists who are offended one way or another anyway.
I think one of the reasons why religion comes into politics so often here is that somewhere deep inside, American voters want to know that their leaders feel they are answerable to a higher power. From a political science standpoint, that is the citizens as a whole…but from a more mundane view, that would be some sort of God. As the majority of the country identifies themselves as Christian, it seems only natural to go that route.
As for her sincerity, well…that’s between her and God 🙂
In most of the US you can’t get elected if you’re an overt atheist, just as you can’t get elected if you don’t run with an “R” or a “D” next to your name; atheists and third parties need not apply. All of our politicians make the obligatory protestations of religiousity. I’m an atheist libertarian and live in the heart of the Bible Belt; I ain’t getting elected to nothin’! (I’m lower on the pecking order than Jews and Catholics, so for the most part I just keep my mouth shut.) Palin’s remark doesn’t much concern me because of her history; I agree that she’s a believer but I don’t get any sense that she wants to shove it down my throat. (Huckabee is a different story; that man scares me.)
The Republicans are floundering in the wilderness right now, the way they did during the Carter interregnum, trying to figure out what they want to be. The accommodating, centrist, big-government types have been in the ascendency since Bush I, but the small-government types are trying to take back control. The problem is that there is no Ronald Reagan leading the charge (he spent the Carter years politicking across the country as a private citizen, energizing the base and redefining the debate). I think Palin is trying to fill that role today. I say, good luck to her; I can’t see anyone else even trying.
Mike Huckabee who was by far the most religious candidate last year has just lost any hope due to his pardon of the Tacoma cop killer. It seems as if he took his Christian charity thing way too far.
Bush’s religion pushed him to do things like his African AIDS initiative and his fight against human trafficking.
Palin had just come out of a meeting with Billy Graham, hard to imagine her not saying anything about God in that context. If she had just met with an asparagus farmer she would have said something about asparagus.
An american politician’s God talk can be difficult to decipher. In effect, it is often used as a form of code intended to reassure the base of the politicians support while saying something more moderate or even entirely different in the minds of the general populace.
The only way to decode it is to listen to the favorite religious formulations being used by each subset of true believers (not necessarily even religious believers). Think of it as a regional dialect indicating group membership. This is too time consuming a task for the average voter to bother deciphering myself included, and I imagine all but impossible for a european.
All I can say is this talk from Sarah Palin is not an example of the religious formulations you would typically hear from a libertarian.
This doesn’t necessarily mean she won’t support a smaller government it just means she isn’t intentionally trying to reasure libertarians. Or more likely in Sarah Palin’s case, the proffesional groomers haven’t gotten hold of her yet and she is just talking like her Alaskan supporters still. Expect it to change over time.
LOL. Indeed and as with Reagan, I will be happy to cheer her on regardless of the religious crap if she is sound on the issues that really matter.
Taylor,
Don’t discount Huckabee over that incident. The state Parole Board recommended that dude for clemency. His file up until that point was nominal; the real ‘blame’ there lays with the 2 judges that, subsequent to his clemency release, put him back on the street at marginal bail amounts for violent crimes.
Christian Charity had nothing to do with Huckabee’s decision. It was based on a recommendation from officials that he did not appoint.
I take it you don’t do sex on the beach?
Nice try for a dirty edge, though.
Why is this articulation “God’s Will” anymore offputting than “Free Will” or the “General Will,” all of which seem to relate to the concept of “interest” in the sense how each person determines their conduct?
At the risk of taking things too far into theology, it might be worthwhile to consider that some use the term “God’s Will” for differing purposes: to deal with the inexplicable tragedies; or to define a personal sense of oughtness, such as seeking to separate “right from wrong.”
Perhaps, JP’s idea that institutions (a la the U S) have interests separate and apart from its individual members, as posted last Wednesday, and the responses, should be revisited.
It does seem there is a bit of collectivist streak in many concepts.
LibertarinaSoul – yes there is a big difference between showing mercy for a man who has served years in prison for house breaking (done as a boy – and whose heavy sentance of 68 years was suspected to be partly motivated by him being black) and two fluff head judges in Washington State letting a child rapist walk on five thousand Dollars bail.
On Sarah Palin.
America is in a terrible position – and it will be much worse by January 20th 2013 and due to get much worse still.
True economic (and social) breakdown will be upon America and much of the West.
In such a situation a nonsectarian Christian (and, contrary to the media, Palin goes to a nonsectrian and tolerant church) may well be needed – someone who can say “God is with us” to a population in despair, and say it with the sound of truth.
I suppose it depends on how one looks at things – for example when the new Governor of Arizonia said God has given me the task of cutting government spending to save Arizonia from ruin, I was uplifted (I was given hope that this lady might actually do what she said she was going to try and do).
Perry may have been depresed – different people react to the same words diffferently.
But I suspect that most people in Arizonia reacted the way I did – even though I am thousands of miles away.
Perry sez: “I will be happy to cheer her on regardless of the religious crap if she is sound on the issues that really matter.
She was SUPER SOUND on the issues as a Governor of Alaska, Perry.
Satisfied?
Would you be equally enraged if she stated her, lets say, agnosticism with an eqaual fervor?
By the way, I consider myself an agnostic, have rather sarcastic attitude towards any religion and and I am also a supporter of a small famiy.
Still I am a SUPER ENTHUSIASTIC MEGA FAN of Sarah Palin.
Her strong statement concerning her faith generated very strong , positive, emotional reactions in me.
And yet, it didn’t make me to turn towards any faith.
I still remain a comitted agnostic.
So I don’t have any issues with her projecting her faith.
And you forgot that she is a private citizen and not a politician.
By the way, I’m also a fierce opponent of a criminalisation of abortion (Sarah has never advocated such a measure).
And yet it has been introduced in an overwelmingly Catholic Poland and… it somehow put a stop to one of the greatest tragedies of our time.
Even if that harmed some individuals
And it also improved Polish demographics. Sometihing that is not insignificant at the time, when the Muslems are using the demography as a weapon against Western civilisation.
P.S: Apology for my not so perfect English. It is entirely self-taught.
P.S: Atheism is also a religion. A religion of Marxism, of a totalitarian collectivism. And as such is as irrational as any God-based faith.
But when atheism is being stated and projected with anger (just like Parry did) it becomes a militant religion of a collectivism.
Uhm Laird, You forget Bernie Sanders who calls himself a socialist (gasp) and who has been reelected more times than is healthy. Also, David Davis comes closest to how American’s see the issue. Religion is not that big of a deal to us, we are comfortable with “it.”
The function of religion is to transmit morality from one generation to the next. I think that is what people are most concerned about, that those in power have the wisdom of morality.
The investment of authority in ‘god’ is a lot like investing authority in government, so when people pray for guidance of those in power, they are voicing a hope that they will act morally. The details of what is right in any given situation, that is the sticky point. People hope to find those answers in religion, but when it comes right down to it, it is humans who are acting based upon their ideas whether they take responsibility for that or try to sluff it off on The Great Unknowable.
We do need to transmit morality from generation to generation. Cartoons and literature and movies do a great job of it, in the modern world. It ain’t going to be done through politicians, I’m pretty sure.
Did you actually read my article Bogdan? Let me put it more simply:
1. I am happy to support her if she rolls back the state in spite of the religious mumbo jumbo.
2. Enraged? Does the title “Sigh…” suggest enraged to you? I just find the irrationalist stuff tiresome, that is all.
And as for atheism being a religion, how is not believing in invisible entities a “religion”? That is a bit like describing refusing an offer to dance in a club and instead sitting at the bar as “a type of dancing”.
I find the whole notion of “god” tells me nothing about the nature of reality (other than as a psychological artifice) and so I simply ignore the whole question and seek my answers elsewhere in the hope of finding explanations I will find more meaningful. If I was “militant” like Dawkins, I would be arguing against people holding religious views, but I am not as I do not I regard religion as intrinsically destructive, just “not a good idea, thanks”.
There are far more damaging notions I would rather spend my time arguing against rather than something I see as on a par with believing in pixies at the bottom of the garden… if some one believes in pixies AND a smaller state, then they are one of the good guys, regardless of how daft I may think their other views are… just don’t expect me not to roll my eyes if they feel the need to hold forth on the importance of pixies/religion/magic crystals/whatever.
Americans are interested in what other people believe and why. When we lived in England, about the most people would admit to was whether they were ‘chapel’ or CofE…and you were considered rude if you asked.
Here it is something that gets talked about. No one is embarrassed about it. We either don’t have the deep-seated British sense of privacy, or we are more loquacious, or we actually think it makes a difference in the public square and we want to know.
In any case, it is a more important issue than “boxers or briefs”, which is the faith of the MSM.
Valerie, I live in South Carolina. Trust me; in the Old South religion most assuredly is “that big of a deal to us”. In my experience that’s true in much of the country, although I will grant you that there are some places (the Northeast generally, where Bernie Sanders is from, and a few odd spots like San Francisco) where it seems to matter a lot less. Sanders is indeed an avowed socialist, but I don’t know about his religious affiliation (if any). Still, outside of Vermont (and maybe even there), my suspicion is that if he “came out” as an atheist his election chances would be seriously diminished, if not completely ended.
Stolen from a commentator(Lamontyoubigdummy) at Protein Wisdom.
Whenever the words “tolerate” or “tolerance” come into these kinds of discussions, the following words of the Lebanese poet come to mind:
Tolerance is love, sick with the sickness of haughtiness.”
I happen to agree with this.
Isn’t it what Hayek said too ? To avoid conceit? If that’s where her religion takes her. it’s ok with me.
Though I’m not religious, I’m not disturbed by her kind of religion. I would not have found it offensive enough to write a post on it.
I’m not quite sure how rededicating the country to God’s will, in a US context, is all that much different in practical matters to dedicating it to Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia. The largest difference as a practical matter is that better than 3/4ths of the electorate will understand the former and not the latter.
The need to balance so many faiths in the US and avoid religious war while encouraging serious practice of all those faiths is a tremendous balancing act that limits how much theology one can inject into the body politic. In general such statements are a commitment, sometimes even real, to not let the country degenerate into a money grubbing land without any public consideration of what many consider “the higher virtues”.
I consider the statement unobjectionable, even admirable, unless it is paired with a record of sectarian activity that would spell trouble on the religious war front. Sarah Palin has a record and there is no such sectarianism in that record.
Bogdan (a name which, funnily, means “Given by God in Ukrainian) is engaged in boringly familiar logical fallacy I came across numerous times here in America: marxsists/stalinists/coollectivists declared their atheism, so ALL atheists must be marxsist/stalinist/collectivist.
Not true. One is not the cause of another. Two entities that SOMETIMES overlap, nit always and not inherently consequential.
If I find sufficient amount of examples of people who – simultaneously – are Christians and child molesters, or agnostics and street sweepers, would Bogdan conclude that ALL child molesters are Christians? That ALL street sweepers are agnostics? And that being an agnostic is a mandatory condition for becoming a street sweeper?
You would think that the answer is obvious and should be clear to any person with a gran of common sense, let alone to high school graduates who sat through Formal Logic class.
And yet, mind-boggling amount of people hold the opinion that every atheist is a Leftie. I lost a few friends who consider themselves libertarian over this stumbling block; one had shared my libertarian views and had known me for three years, all the while laughing at people who assumed I’m a communist because I immigrated from USSR – but declared me a spitting image of Obama, a collectivist and a socialist as soon as I didn’t approve of his conversion to Roman Catholicism.
Another manifestation of this fallacy is a widely-spread belief that all Jews are communists. No matter the amount of example to the contrary – people who want to believe it, to base their anti-semitism on something, will do so regardless to facts.
Well, Bogdan’s just being obtuse. Atheism isn’t either religion or politics, it’s a statement about how the world works: physics, if you will. Admittedly, many atheists share the character flaws of the loudly religious but much the same thing may be said of, for instance, food cranks.
I will say that I think materialism, properly understood, leads to deism rather than atheism, but I know that’s very much a minority opinion.
I have to agree with TMLucas, in another discussion related to this post, I was precisely trying to make that point, among others, but lacked the clarity of TMLucas.
Though I agree with Tatyana in some of her views in favor of Perry’s views. I adhere to TMLucas’s views that any of Palin’s remarks must be viewed in a US context in order to understand the political implications.
I wrote Jos, instead of Jose Angel in my last comment. Sorry for the double post.
Perry:
You know better than that, man. Stop it.
Buddhism as originally conceived has no belief in ‘invisible entities’ either – in fact, the ‘nirvana’ of Buddhism is pretty much oblivion. And yet it is a religion. Taoism as originally conceived was also about an abstract *tao* or way. No invisible entities, but still a religion.
Christianity, for that matter, is a belief in a historical flesh-and-blood person, who lived and died and came back (as witnessed by over half a thousand people and then some) some 2000 years ago. Hardly an ‘invisible entity’, unless you consider Julius Caesar to be an invisible entity as well. The fact that we can’t see Jesus in the flesh any more, sure, but 2000 years ago the people *could*.
A religion is a set of beliefs and/or practices with core axioms concerning the ‘Big Picture’, or metaphysical framework, of the universe and why everything works. Everyone’s got one of those, even if it’s “I fail to see the relevance of the issue to my life currently”.
The fact is, if you do not believe in any god, then you believe there is no god. Alternatively, you don’t know, and you don’t care – which would make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.
And anyway, nobody’s perfect. Sarah’s got to do her thing, and you got to do yours.
Gregory: I agree with your point to Perry, but:
I thought Christians believe in God, with Jesus “only” being his son?
BTW, IANAT, but I have seen it very much disputed that Buddhism is in fact a religion.
Ooh, Alisa, that’s a bundle of worms. The Buddhism thing.
I don’t know what others might or might not have influenced your understanding of Christianity; at the expense of being thought a God-botherer, allow me to endeavour an explanation:
Christians believe in YHWH, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the G-d of Israel, the G-d of David, yes. We believe that this G-d revealed Himself to mankind as a tripartite being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in a mysterious revelation known as the Trinity.
We also believe that this invisible Being of spirit and truth clothed Himself in human flesh and lived as a man for some 33 years or so.
So, basically, Jesus *is* God. And our ‘faith’ is rooted in historical events and a historical person, Rabbi Yehoshuah bar-Miriam ha-Mashiah of Nazareth. Who is the perfect representation of G-d, as He is the invisible G-d made visible.
And as for Buddhism, well… Indonesia recognises it as one of the six state-sanctioned religions (atheism is illegal, although rarely prosecuted, in Indonesia). Malaysia also recognises it as a religion on our birth and citizenship identification documents, as does Singapore. Canada recognises it as a world religion. Most Buddhists say it is a religion. What more do you want? 🙂
Perry’s position is clear.
He does not share Sarah Palin’s Christianity, and wishes that the lady would not talk about it so much.
However, he will support Palin – if he thinks the lady will do what should be done (to avoid economic and social collapse) as President.
An entirely honest and logical position.
I believe in God and I have no political problem with Perry on the above.
And I do not see why anyone else should have a problem with the postion as Perry has explained it in his comment.
Thanks Gregory, I forgot about the Trinity thing. I still cannot quite wrap my mind around it, but I get the general point. As for Buddhism, I was not discussing its legal status, as it is not very relevant, is it. I have not had the chance to have a conversation on the subject with actual Buddhists though, so feel free to consider me ignorant on that for now.
Paul Marks: If that were it, that position would indeed be eminently honest, logical and most reasonable, and no one should belabour the point unduly with Perry.
However, that’s not exactly the way I read it. Perry says he ‘winces’ whenever she says something ‘state-religious-ish’, which means he actually feels pain. Not only does he not share her faith, he finds it offensive that she shares it with the public in that manner. In fact, she just shouldn’t pollute the airwaves with her superstitious blather. Speak only about secular and libertarian principles, there’s a good Palin, because, otherwise I’m deeply suspicious of you. In fact, watching a religious person being religious in public is very much like watching a drunkard making a nuisance of himself. In public.
Now, to be fair, in his further comments Perry expands on his real meaning and his actual stance… but reading his OP and his first few posts does not lend necessarily itself to the reasonable position as you have put it, now does it?
Okay, so maybe I’m making it sound worse. And for the record, I have no problem with his stance, either. But I can certainly see why others might take a little umbrage, can’t you?
I see it the way Gregory does. But, OTOH:
People will always take umbrage with something, wouldn’t they. So this is how Perry feels, some of us might feel differently, so what. He is not forcing his feelings on anyone, that’s all that should matter.
Alisa: Eh, who can wrap his head around the concept? Anyone who says he can is a lying sack of potatoes.
The issue is always, always definition. My definition of religion is rock solid, because it does *not* need to be about invisible sky fairies. Religion is metaphysics and by definition purports to speak truth about the reality underlying the universe, or supernatural reality, if you prefer. A statement as bald as atheism makes i.e. ‘there is no god, we are all here by random and undirected processes and when we die we get snuffed out into oblivion’ is as equally valid a religious statement as ‘there is a single Creator God, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent and yet immanent, merciful and gracious yet holy and righteous’ and ‘there are many gods who act very much like superpowered humans with the same desires and bad habits only immortal and jackasses to boot’. Or, as the Buddhists would say, ‘life is suffering and only when you recognise that life is suffering can you move on from life into nirvana, which is nothingness, otherwise you will keep coming round and round’. Yeah, I’m probably munging the statements as above, but it’s bound to be fairly close.
Equally valid, because from our perspective we cannot use natural philosophy to prove or disprove any of them.
As for Perry; yes, true, it’s how he feels and that’s fine. But seeing as he posted it on a blog, and the blog allows commenters to, well, comment, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the cantankerous, rowdy bunch of people that make the Samizdata commentariat will also have some choice words to express their feelings too, eh? 🙂
Anyhows, it’s back from the office for me, and as I’m upgrading my broadband at home to something slightly less crappy, I’ve been advised that ‘Internet connectivity may be intermittent and suffer disruption for up to 7 working days’. So, see you all in another 14 hours or so.
C’mon, Gregory, we both know it’s your previous paragraph that was really addressed to Perry;-) I absolutely agree with you on atheism. To me religion is just another ideology, only with god(s) attached to it. Atheism is different from other, “god-indifferent” ideologies in that it is not indifferent to god, so for many (although certainly not all) intents and purposes it can be treated as a religion. With that in mind, in my book Perry rather comes across more as an agnostic than an atheist, but he’s not reading my book, is he;-)
My notion of atheism is that there is no ‘supernatural’ and therefore as a consequence things like god(s), reincarnation and an ‘afterlife’ are imaginary. I am a “materialist” in that I think our conciousness is an emergent property of our biological existence (i.e. the ‘soul’ is a electrical pattern in a volatile biological medium).
The reason I reject the theory of “god” or any other religious approach is because I think it does not really explain anything in a useful way (i.e. I do not say “there is no god” but rather “religion explains reality the same way ‘here be dragons’ explains geography on a medieval map”… it is just a ‘cheat’ used to explain things that cannot yet be explained more usefully).
I also therefore reject the notion that “atheism is a religion” in that all religion seems to contain a supernatural element (Christianity etc. has god(s), Buddhism has reincarnation, etc.) as opposed to leaving placeholders saying “please insert some principle of physics to explain this at some point in the future”.
Perry, it seems to me that the term ‘supernatural’ can be understood as just another way of saying ‘that which is yet to be explained by science’. The way I understand it, religious people take their god(s)/fairies/souls/ghosts/whatever to be part of nature, i.e. of this physical world, it’s just they cannot (yet?) prove their existence through scientific method. If I am correct in this, then what you profess is indeed identical to agnosticism.
Not really Alisa. The supernatural is an explanation, rather a placeholder for a better theory… quantum tunnelling and quantum entanglement are demonstrable phenomena but we do not really know why it does what it does, just that it does seem to be the case. An attempt at a supernatural explanation would be “because of spirits” or “god’s will” or something like that, rather than “we dunno why yet”.
I used to describe myself as an agnostic due to my lack of inclination to say “there is no god”, but I changed my self description to atheist because I realised that the whole notion of god was simply superfluous to every theory I had. That is why I describe myself as a ‘shoulder shrugging atheist’… I just cannot see the utility (beyond the psychological) of “god” in explaining anything at all.
Perry, there many very religious people (at least Jewish ones) who are also scientists, at times very serious ones. They don’t seem to attempt to explain various unexplained phenomena by spirits or the will of god. My point was that they seem to see god himself as part of the physical world, while his existence is not yet/cannot be proved by science. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with them, just making an observation.
As to your personal labeling, fair enough, and I do see the logic.
Well, I use the term in its literal sense when I describe myself as such.
So you describe yourself as a denier of god’s existence because allowing for a possibility of that existence is not useful? Since when do we subscribe to truths on the basis of their usefulness? Lies are a different matter, though;-)
No doubt, but my problem is that “god” does not explain anything. Even if god does indeed exist within the physical universe, it does not actually explain any of it and so I do not really see any value in pondering something that will not in fact advance my understanding of the nature of reality in my particular space/time reality.
Also the example I gave before of “god” as a non-answer was not to suggest religious scientists are actually trying to explain quantum tunnelling by referencing the supernatural, but rather that inserting “god” into pretty much any search for the truth is an intellectual dead end.
I do not ‘deny’ god’s existence (“there is no god”) so much as ‘discount’ it (“I do not see the point of god”) because…
… ‘god’ does not explain the truth of anything, i.e. led to better and deeper theories. The usefulness I speak of is as a concept in the search for truth and introducing god into pondering that does not seem to move anything forward.
I see. I’ll think about it until the next time:-)
I suggest that: If you don’t want to be confronted with a Christian politician’s views on faith, then you avoid clicking through to the video of the interview about faith, released by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
Of course this leaves aside the question of whether the Telegraph headline is an accurate reflection of the content of her responses to the interview questions…
There simply are many people who wish to reduce the State because they wish to replace what it is currently doing with their own “common sense” dictations. There are many believers who still eschew the use of Force, but many anti-Statist religious folk are so simply because of the secular nature of it, not its means. I sense Palin is in the latter category.
I sense the opposite.
I’m with Alisa.
Indeed, I would sooner chew my own fingers off than click that link 🙂
Now, blast it, Perry, you’re shifting the basis of the argument, but fine.
You can say that religions require supernatural explanations of the natural world. Let me turn it around and say rather that religions make truth claims about the supernatural as well as the natural.
Your ‘brand’ of atheism leads you to assert that there is no ‘supernatural’; i.e. the universe and indeed everything that exists is completely self-contained and there’s nothing beyond the physical.
Which is a mighty large assertion to make, and one that is essentially unfalsifiable. You speak of ‘there is no god’ as if it was self-evident and proven, but you yourself admit that ‘eh, it explains everything and nothing at the same time, so why should I believe it?’ which, as Alisa said, is not how you start any honest scientific inquiry.
Okay, I refute that the existence of a Creator God does not explain anything. It explains why the universe exists (i.e. because He made it), why the laws of physics work, why mathematics work, why the natural sciences can provide reliable results (because it flows from His nature; He is consistent and therefore His work is also consistent).
Actually, Alisa, we don’t say that God is part of nature. He is in it (immanent), but He is also beyond it (transcendent). Some other religions posit otherwise, but not Judaeo-Christian beliefs.
Let’s go even further. What happened before the beginning of the universe (for those who are non steady-staters)? Any good scientist will tell you this is an irrelevant question – indeed, that you cannot use scientific methodology to answer that question. And why not? Because the natural sciences rely on cause -and-effect, and if there is not space/time continuum with laws of physics to work in, and no way of observing causes and effects, then the scientific method does not go there and indeed cannot work.
So we can see there are indeed metaphysical areas in which the scientific method does not belong in and does not work. Your claim is that the physical and the metaphysical are the same set i.e. there is nothing beyond the reach of scientific explanation. This is a faith claim, as there is no way to falsify your belief – indeed, you cannot prove a negative.
Ergo, atheism is as much a religion as Buddhism, or are you saying that you can prove conclusively that the supernatural does not exist?
And with that I think I’ve gone off the rails pretty much completely.
Atheism is not a religion. The term atheism means without theism. It is nothing more than that. Some atheists may assert there is no god or gods. I see no evidence of such. I am fine with others having religious beliefs as long as they are not forcing it on me.
That being said, a person’s religious beliefs would not be an issue when it comes to vote. I am more concerned with a person being for liberty and personal freedom. Not all atheists are for such concepts, which amazes me. I cannot see how someone who is free of religious dogmas and supersititions can be so eager to give up their freedom and liberty to the state. It makes no sense to me. I have more in common with those religious people that are for freedom and liberty than with atheists who are statists. A person’s religious beliefs should not matter when they are running for office, unless they intend to use the power of their office to enforce their religious beliefs.
Kathy Staab: Again, you are conflating the two. Atheism comes from the root words a- which means without, and theos, which means God.
There are religions that are non-theistic in nature; Buddhism and Taoism (and some would include Confucianism as well) are examples.
Some regard Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism as philosphies rather than religions. So, what separates philosophy from religion? How do you define the two?
That is my favoured theory as I see no compelling theories to suggest otherwise.
Actually no. It is the least-big assertion to make. “God” is the mighty big assertion to make.
Not at all… all you have to do is demonstrate plausibly that “god” actually explains things better (or indeed at all) and viola, no-god is falsifed… but as all the theories that try to do that are neither deeper nor really explain anything, I am sticking with the simpler Occam friendly “there is just the natural” and not adding the extra complexity of the supernatural as it does not really tell us much.
Not at all. My contention is that the claim there is a god is neither self-evident nor proven, so I prefer to just look for my explanations in the natural universe.
Except is still explains nothing. You might as well say “Boris the Interdimensional Space Monkey wants pi-r-squared to be the way it works in this particular space/time”. Ok… lets posit that “God” exists for a moment… lets call her, say, “Eris”, or better yet, “Azathoth”… and lets says all of what you claim above is true… well what does that tell us? Some entity has created the universe this way rather than that way and therefore, well, therefore what? Nothing really.
I suspect that indeed god does not exists other than in people’s imaginations, but even if she does, I consider god as pointless as the existence of some unfathomable multiversal super-entity does not actually tell me much about the nature of the reality this super-being has supposedly created. Quantum entanglement work the way it does because god say so. Well, great. Even if true, that is not very enlightening because it tells us bugger all about the poorly understood mechanics of quantum entanglement.
Oh Gregory, Gregory, Gregory… ergo nothing of the sort. One forms a critical preference for the best theory currently available, the one that provides the deepest and most complete explanation with the available information. But although one can be pretty conclusive when you falsify something, you can never conclusively prove any theory beyond any possibility of revision (even that one) because everything we know is conjectural to varying degrees.
And semantically it is nonsense to call a set of opinions that reject the supernatural “a religion”. Even non-theistic “religions” have supernatural explanations of aspects of reality (and if they do not, they ain’t religions).
Perry: Oy, I suppose I shouldn’t be doing this on the company dime, and really the best thing to do would be to agree to disagree, but…
Atheism is not a rational response, because it makes a very specific truth claim about the supernatural; namely, that it does not exist. Not “probably does not exist”, not “can’t be proven to exist in the scientific manner”, but “there is nothing supernatural about anything and the scientific method can explain *everything* there is to explain”.
If this is not your contention, if your contention is simply “the existence of a god(dess) or god(desse)s is immaterial to my life) then that’s more an agnostic pov.
I’m not trying to nail you down or anything, but I’m trying to get a common frame of reference, otherwise we really are talking at cross purposes.
Let me put it another way. A true scientist will approach an experiment wanting to be proven correct (of course!) but willing to be proven wrong as to his hypothesised model. You, on the other hand, are not even willing to admit the possibility of the supernatural as a cause!
So, fine, let’s take something fundamental, like the origin of life. Read up Cynthia Yockey, and her father Hubert Yockey. She admits up front that neither of them are Creationists, and they are evolutionists, and Behe’s been using her father’s work out of context… but that the origin of life is essentially unprovable by evolution, and has to be taken as axiomatic. In other words, by faith.
Shit, why shouldn’t I say God made life? The sciences certainly can’t do any better than that, and I hope I’m not pulling an argument by authority fallacy here.
As for the various competing God-stories out there, why should we evaluate them as equal to each other? Obviously, the free market (well, to use a metaphor) has winnowed them down to just a few, and it’s those few that you need to concentrate on. Eris and Astaroth seem to have lost out.
Kathy Staab: Chances are, religions take a stab at the afterlife and the nature of what lies beyond our space/time continuum. Confucianism advocates literal ancestor worship (and hence afterlife), as does Buddhism, and Taoism speaks towards mysticism. Atheism answers the afterlife question (i.e. there is none) and the supernatural question also (i.e. there is no such thing as supernatural). For that matter, hard agnosticism (the answers to these questions are unknown and unknowable) is also a religion insofar as it purports to answer them.
Hedonism (who gives a shit, let’s just enjoy this life while it lasts) is more philosophy, as it doesn’t even pretend to answer the questions.
And that really has to be it from me.
Too broad a claim, Gregory. What I am saying is that the supernatural is a lousy explanation for things we do not understand. In fact it is not really an explanation at all, it is a refusal to explain and therefore does not merit any consideration, much like saying the earth orbit the sun because it is pushed by invisible pixies. I cannot prove that invisible planet pushing pixies do not exist, but they are not really a serious attempt to explain gravitational effects. So I am not “denying the existence of invisible pixies”, I am just saying there are much better explanations that do not involved invisible pixies or any other supernatural agencies and it is most likely that the answers to other questions will also be found without recourse to the dead end of invoking the supernatural.
So rather than “denying” the supernatural, I disdain the supernatural because it explains less than the natural. Once the supernatural is invoked, it does not seem possible to progress a theory beyond that. And attempting to do so seems viable only if you then immediately discount the importance of the supernatural (i.e. one says “god created the universe” and then proceed to ignore god whilst trying to figure out how the universe actually works. This is how it is possible to cling to religious sentiments and still be a scientist).
William of Occam cut away that layer for me some years ago and that is why I call myself an atheist… a ‘negative’ atheist if you like because I do not say “there is no god” as a positive atheist might assert, but rather “I see no need for god to explain things”.
Sir:
I think you do not understand the basis for the statement as you have to be truly American to do so. It is simply a reflection of the founding documents of our nation and the beliefs held by our founders and to this day still, by a great many of us citizens. God has a place in our national soul as he has so blessed this nation, and we recognize that. That we chose unfettered capitalism for the initial 2/3 of our history also has a bit to do with it of course. That is all.
Terrapod, I’m an American and somehow manage not to have a place in my little slice of “the national soul” for any Gods.
Oy.
Terrapod, I’m also an American who somehow manages not to have a place in my little slice of “the national soul” for any Gods.
Oh, but talk about a moth to the candle flame… sorry about this, Perry, but you really get my argumentative senses alight.
I suppose that if you care to define atheism in the narrow sense as you described, then okay, well and good, and we can stop there.
I would like to just point out something, though; the answers ‘science’ looks for and the answers ‘faith’ looks for are on two different magisteria, that, despite what all the skeptics claim, do on occasion overlap. But they are two different sets nonetheless; ‘science’ is usually described as ‘how’ and religion is usually described as ‘why’ or ‘who’.
An example you may be be familiar with is the series ‘How do they do it?’ in which processes we take for granted are dissected and studied in detail. Note that at no time are any of these processes posited to have ‘evolved’ randomly; rather, the implication behind all of it is that someone (or many someones) came up with (designed and implemented) this ingenious process, and what purposes these processes meet.
As for invisible pixies pushing the planets around, well, here’s a question: exactly what attribute is it about matter that enables it to exert the four fundamental forces? *Why* does it exert these forces?
As I understand it, neither classical, relativistic nor quantum physics has any ready explanations; they pretty much just say “That’s how it works; accept it”.
Go ahead, look it up. People will tell you that such and such will exert this force and that force under circumstances so on and so forth, but no real explanation as to why. Pretty much a Just So story from my perspective (look at http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY17.HTM)
Why is gravity being exerted? Because there is a body of mass exerting it. Why is the mass exerting it? Because gravitational force always exists when you have mass. Oy, what a circular argument.
My answer? Because God is sustaining the universe by His power. Why is He doing that? Well, a good start to the answer is found in the Bible. But the answer “Because within every quark there exists an entity whose sole detectible influence upon the space/time continuum we inhabit is manifested by gravitational force, and these entities are called pixies” is a valid response. Wrong, maybe, but valid. And certainly better than “Oh, it just happens like that; gravity is a function of mass.”
The answer at the moment is… “we do not know yet”… but the answer is not…
Sure but that is not what is said… “That is what we can explain so far until we come up with a deeper theory” is what is said, not “accept it”… accept what exactly? The fact our theories are incomplete? I have yet to hear a sensible scientist say that (unless they were talking about global warming of course).
So saying “god” is a non-answer because that is the end of the story surely, no? Why try to deepen and widen our understanding of physics if when we cannot explain something, the answer is “the power of god makes it happen”?
Oh yes and…
Well that is how I see it and I think my view of it is rather broad. Clearly Dawkins sees it a bit differently and far more narrowly (as he is essentially an authoritarian dogmatist)… so I am not “supporting atheism” so much as just expressing how I see reality.
Perry:
That makes sense. The part I am really missing is what is the problem you have with calling yourself an agnostic? It’s not that I care that much about semantics (normally I do, but when people explain their positions well enough, like you did, then semantics become less of a problem), but I’m just curious.
Alisa, agnostic seems to suggest “maybe yes, maybe no, but we have no way to know for sure”… but my position is that as “god” does not actually explain anything and adds a totally superfluous layer on top of the struggle to understand reality, I do not see the point of the whole idea beyond that of a mental crutch… and we do not know anything ‘for sure and beyond a doubt’ in that an objective but conjectural epistemology is the rational one in my view… but that does not mean all theories are equally likely to be correct (we try to form a critical preference for the best one with what we know at the moment).
So as I think “god” was created for entirely psychological reasons, and as also I think “agnostic” implies that one entertains the notion that “god exists” in any objective sense is even worth considering, which I do not as it explains nothing, I think “agnostic” does not describe my views well enough.
So although I may not be a “Dawkins” (i.e. I am not an anti-religious crusader, I just think religion is a psychological weakness to which people are entitled to turn if that is their desire), I think I am too god-sceptical to just be “agnostic”.
It is interesting how we (or at least I), while we are interested in other people’s views, are also using them to re-examine our own.
So when I describe myself as agnostic on the existence of god (as I do), I do so because I am in fact agnostic on everything. Then, I guess what you are saying is that you are much less agnostic on god (or anything “supernatural”) than on everything else. If that is the case, then I certainly see the logic, although I still see ‘atheist’ as an unsuitable alternative term. But, like I said, it can do, depending on further explanation.
Gregory:
Um, say what? I don’t know about you, but by ‘nature’ I mean ‘this world’ (and any other worlds, if you like), by which I mean everything that exists. So, in that frame of reference, does God exist or not?
No, because used that way, “agnostic” just means “uses the scientific method and is therefore non-dogmatic about what he thinks”… I try to avoid dogmatism but that does not mean I do not form a strong critical preference when I see a strong theory.
I have a very very very strong critical preference for the theory that if I drop my coffee cup, it will fall to the floor as expected… however as I might actually exist in a virtual reality and I am really a grey spacemonkey imagining I am a human dropping a coffee cup (I cannot prove incontrovertibly otherwise) I accept that even that theory has a conjectural element… but that does not mean all theories are as strong as all others… and as I think the “god exists objectively outside the heads of believers” is a weaker theory than “god is a delusion”, I call myself an atheist.
But like all theories, this too is conjectural. That I accept conjecture is part of all theories does not make me an agnostic however.
I see Perry.
Uh, Perry, I do have a small request for you, if you think you can carry it out. I cannot, simply because I don’t trust Malaysian physicists. And, heh, I don’t know any of them.
Can you find a reliable scientist-type chap and *ask* him directly? I mean, I’m fairly sure that no branch of the natural sciences deals with *why* the laws of physics work the way they do, and *why* the constants are the way they are.
I’m also fairly sure that the two ‘answers’ are either the anthropic principle (i.e. otherwise we won’t be here to observe it) or many-worlds (it just so happens the laws of physics are the way they are in this universe). Which are metaphysical answers, you’ll notice.
Alisa: Ah, different definitions. By yours, obviously God exists, hence He is in the set of {‘things’ that exist}. But I don’t define ‘nature’ that way. I define this universe (and everything in it) as ‘Creation’ and ‘nature’ as a synonym. By that definition, God is *in* nature (i.e. He plays an active role within His creation), but not *of* it (i.e. He is the uncreated Creator, not part of Creation).
Mea culpa. I was working off my definition and not yours.
Well of course, don’t we all. That’s what happens when there are no clear, government-enforced guidelines!
[Shudder]
The last thing I want is a bloody Royal Commission On Maintaining The Purity Of Her Majesty The Queen’s English.
Sure, it may help with the spelling issues with our American brethren, but it will also lead to stultification. Not my idea of fun. After all, English is a pirate’s language, and it should stay that way.
I think it is all about “how” because “why”, in the way I suspect you mean it, presupposes an overarching reason for existence beyond “existence exists”. If it makes you fell better, say “because god wills it that way” and then get back to the serious business of figuring out how it all fits together to make it work the way it does and come up with a good “theory of everything” that actually explains things 😛
How did a discussion about Sarah Palin turn into a theological debate? It seems that any mention of “God” pulls a thread into an inescapable black hole.
God is a tar baby.
The stance seems odd to me that we cannot know for sure if there is a reason for existence but we can know for sure that there is not. For someone who refuses all evidence that doesn’t pass the scientifically plausible reality smell test, I think it only lends credence to metaphysics to stake a position in opposition to theists that must by definition be based on metaphysical opinions. Perhaps too many of these words have too many different acceptable definitions to have an clear discussion.
Perry: The understanding of any purpose in a particular process, series of events or cycle is almost certainly required before figuring out the ‘how’.
Consider, for instance, the Climategate codes and models. Without asking “what were these guys thinking when they wrote the code?”, it would have been much harder.
There are two schools of thought on commenting code, I realise that. But I subscribe to the idea that it’s a good idea, because if you hand that code over to any other person, the comments are often the only ways you can figure out what the bloody code is doing – or supposed to be doing.
I know you’re probably not debating a strawman here, so I would like to clarify. When I say that religions answer the ‘why’, I’m not talking about ‘god of the gaps’, which I hate as much as anyone else. As you say, “Because God wills it” doesn’t cut it for a scientist.
What I *am* saying is “What purpose does God have in doing it this particular way?” leads to more scientific discovery than just shrugging and saying that it was due to random undirected chance processes. The same way one asks *why* cars come with roll cages and airbags, rather than just supposing the manufacturers threw them together for the hell of it.
Argh, Perry, you snookered me back into the thread! 🙂
Gregory, you are making a circular argument here: you are comparing things done by men (which almost by definition have a purpose) to things done by God, thus implying that his creations are similarly purposeful, as much by definition as the human ones. It follows then that you are presupposing God to be a man-like entity in that it has a purpose (indeed that ‘it’ is more like ‘he/she’). But obviously, if God was not like that, he/she would not have been God, it would have been just plain old nature.
Alisa: What I am doing is saying that hey, lookit, this ‘ere arrangement of stones that says “Welcome to Burrahobbiton and have a Nice Day” probably had someone arrange it. I’m saying that when you take a look at Climategate, even that crappy pile of code they call a computer program had a purpose and someone had to come up with it, quite possibly tearing his hair out in frustration over three bloody years (I really pity ‘Harry’, you know?).
And then, I take a look at our DNA, which is a really elegant chemical computer programming language. I take a look at the universe, with all of its interlocking laws and forces and constants that are *just so* in order to support complex life on *one* planet (that we know of so far). And you’re telling me I shouldn’t reason that therefore there is a reason behind all of it, and hence a Creator?
There’s another blog (Classical Values) that was talking about teleologists having ‘magical’ thinking and materialists thinking ‘rightly’. Well, yes, and a question I have is will ‘science’ have answers to *everything*? Apparently, Perry believes that eventually, the natural sciences will in fact be able to answer everything… or at least, answer it much better than ‘resorting to the dead end of supernaturalism’.
Ahem. Tell me that’s not magical thinking. If we admit, however, that there are literally areas that scientific knowledge cannot shed any light on, then there is indeed room for the supernatural (it’s a binary issue, after all).
So really, I don’t see how I am arguing in circles here.
In any event, I leave for Commie Motherland tomorrow (Red China), so it’s time for me to pack up, go home and get to the airport. Have a great time, guys!
I doubt we will ever answer everything, but I have no basis to know for sure one way or the other.
In what way?
Why? There are many areas we do not currently have good theories to explain. I have no idea which of those will be successfully explained in the future. Resorting to the supernatural however seems to suggest you know which areas can never be amenable to an explanation beyond that is saying it is “supernatural”. Upon what basis do you decide which issues will not ever be explainable via scientific theorising in the future?
Gregory, my point was that you seem to assume that just because human creations have a purpose, non-human creation must as well. Yes, the DNA is at least as elegant and complex as any computer language, but it was there before computers. Why, beyond the understandable emotional need, would you choose to liken DNA to computers, instead of the other way around? Why do you think that a natural system cannot be a result of a random process, just because it is highly sophisticated, complex, elegant and functioning? Let me know when you get back from the Motherland:-)
Hi Alisa and Perry. Doubt you”re still reading this, though, heh. Hope you had a good holiday (I did, although I got a cold after coming back, bah).
Perry, if you’re okay with the notion that it is possible (possible!) that the scientific method is not sufficient to explain *everything*, then quite naturally you must admit that the extra-scientific explanation is (by definition) ‘supernatural’.
If OTOH you say that it is quite probable that the scientific method will explain *everything*, then that is indeed magical thinking, in the sense that you hold this statement by faith (as you have no evidence suggesting the possibility, much less the probability, that ‘science’ will explain everything.
In any event, I would say that any ‘metaphysical’ question cannot have proper scientific answers or explanations, primarily because they deal with existential issues. You might argue that there is no such thing as metaphysics; that this spacetime continuum (and whatever multiverse that contains it) is all there is and hence such questions are meaningless, but that in itself is a statement of faith (not to mention avoiding the issue), as you can point to no evidence supporting your claim.
Alisa: Ah, pardon my clumsiness in wielding the English language. I am using the language of the IT world to describe DNA primarily because I have experience and training in Computer Science and not in Molecular Biology or Genetics. I suppose my sister (who’s a PhD in Mol. Bio.) would do the opposite, except she’s an absolute duffer in IT (and I have the secondary school exposure to biology, fwiw nowadays).
And as for why I assume the one from the other… well, it’s fairly obvious, isn’t it? By the way, it’s not just ‘human’ creations that have a purpose. Animals and plants do things for reasons too. Even the evolutionary model makes full use of the assumption of meaningfulness (namely, that a particular mutation was at some stage useful for promoting survival, and hence would be ‘selected’ for) in the midst of random undirected processes. If I am making an unwarranted assumption, it at least would seem to be an axiomatic and rather fundamental one. Call it a form of proof by induction, so to speak 🙂
There is no way to know the answer to that. If one day we come up with a theory-of-everything, then maybe we can indeed explain everything, we will only know that if we get there… but if one day that super-theory gets falsified, I guess we need to keep trying… or maybe our biological limitations as a species mean we cannot explain everything (i.e. we just ain’t smart enough), but that will not invalidate the scientific method, nor will it establish the existence of a god that is beyond explanation, it will just establish our limits as physical animals seeking to explain reality.
Just because we have not explained something, it probably does not mean it cannot ever be explained.
Perry: ah, yes, you probably get mailed a copy of every comment or something to that effect.
I grant you everything that you have said thus far; if you will grant me the courtesy of assuming that I have read up the arguments of most atheists and agnostics, that would be greatly appreciated.
At this point in time, I am asking a very simple question, one that has (at most) 3 answers. Namely, is it possible that the ‘scientific method’ is not sufficient to explain *everything*?
The first answer is “Yes, it is possible.” Well, then, the person who answers this is simply saying that there are some areas which the scientific method (or what you can call natural sciences) is unable to explain, and any explanations thereof are by definition, supernatural. And the answer provided as a default by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Satanists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists, animists…
The second answer is “No, it is not possible.” Which means the person who answers this is saying that the scientific method, or the natural sciences, contain all the answers to everything inside and outside the universe. Which requires a complete knowledge of the natural sciences and the universe, and indeed, omniscience, in order to prove the statement. Or, failing which, faith.
The third answer is “I do not know.” Which is what an agnostic would say.
I am not trying to argue you into becoming a theist or a Christian (shock! horror!), you know. I am simply trying to point out to you that insofar as you would claim the second answer, you are also stating a metaphysical position without sufficient evidence (which you admit might very well never be forthcoming). To make such a statement is what requires faith. I respect your position, but I would expect you to admit that it is as much a faith position as mine is (and possibly more so, as there is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus lived when the Gospels say He did, that He did do most or all of what they said He did, and that a whole lot of people living in and around the time He died believed that He came back to life).
Note here that I am not really asking you to say anything about whether *we* will ever be able to use the scientific method to explain everything, but merely whether it *can* or not. You simply don’t have sufficient evidence to incontrovertibly back up any claim that it can, and hence that position is one you claim on faith (as even if I could conclusively prove that Jesus existed, lived and died and somehow came back to life during the period ~6BC – AD33 and performed a lot of incredible feats in that time, I cannot conclusively prove that He is therefore God and will save us all from our sins and a crappy afterlife, and therefore accept that on faith too).
Again, I do not denigrate your position, and indeed I respect your stance as an atheist and as a libertarian. But I do wish you would be a bit more honest with yourself (never mind me, who cares about what I think really) on this matter. Atheism *has* to make certain metaphysical claims that are essentially unprovable as part of its ‘tenets’ (not the best word, but there you are) – it’s embedded in the very name.
As I do not have the answers to all the secrets of the universe, I cannot know if those secrets are even knowable. It is an unanswerable question unless you already know everything.
My contention is that saying “invisible pixies” (or “god” or “supernatural”) is no different to marking the map where parts are unexplored as “here be dragons” rather than marking the unknown bits as “terra incognita”… it is not very revealing and is in fact something of a cheat. I would rather be told “we don’t yet have any decent theories about this part of reality” rather than have fanciful entities that cannot be reasonably theorised be introduced to fill in the blank bits.
The scientific method (i.e. falsificationism and conjectural theories) is the best technique so far for creating coherent views on the nature of reality… I do not know if there will ever be something better but my critical preference is for the theory that their ain’t, or at least no one has come up with a better way yet.
The metaphysical claim I make however are that “existence exists” and I proceed from that basis.
Perry: Ah, then having said that, you have essentially admitted to holding a unproven framework and model. Which is a faith position, and that’s all I want to point out.
BTW, saying that existence exists is very much like saying that the earth is earth-shaped – superficially true, but tautological and not very helpful.
In any event, I think we’ve milked this one dry, don’t you? 🙂
Meaning you and I hold similar positions? I think not. The scientific method does not ‘prove’, it theorises (tries to explain as deeply as possible) and then sees if that theory survives attempts to falsify it.
Nope. It is like saying “my theory is that I am not in fact dreaming everything, i.e. that reality is a figment of my imagination, as I am in reality a transdimentional mollusc-like entity that actually exists outside of space/time”.
I cannot obvious prove I am not a dreaming transdimensional mollusc (as any ‘proof’ could also be a delusion) and this ‘Gregory’ I am communicating with could actually be a figment of my imagination… but I am operating on the basis that existence actually does exist independent of my imagination, objectively independent of my brain’s strange activities, as that seems to explain more things more deeply than the whole figment-of-my-imagination transdimensional mollusc theory… so that is the theory that gets my critical preference for now… unless a better theory comes along 🙂
That is what “existence exists” means. It is a rather key metaphysical statement, an essential axiom in fact.
So when all is said and done, you cannot castigate me for not being able to ‘prove’ God’s existence either. Because surely you cannot prove He does not.
Let me make that perfectly clear, to paraphrase one of the most useless people on the planet. You cannot prove God does not exist. Your best and only argument is that using God as an explanation for anything sounds like a cop-out, is seemingly superfluous and does not add anything to our knowledge, so why use Him as the explanation to anything?
And now, you pretty much just said cogito ergo sum. Okay, phrased differently, and in fact you’re saying something other than what Descartes started out with. But it boils down to believing the evidence of your senses, and that the world *makes sense*.
As you said, and I agree, an essential axiom. But again, something that cannot be proven (as all axioms), and therefore have to be taken on faith.
Just tweak your definition of faith a little, okay? I think you’re leery of that word, but what’s wrong with it? Or maybe you’d prefer trust instead? You trust that the world is as you perceive it. You trust that I am not some clever Turing-passing AI troll wasting your bandwidth. You trust that the fundamental laws of physics will continue to hold long after your death and mine. You trust that the world is not going to stop spinning around its axis. None of these things can be conclusively, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, proven.
Well, I place my trust in the Bible, and in God. Maybe we can agree that we put our trust in different metaphysical frameworks.
Indeed and I did not do so.
I also cannot prove gravity is not the force exerted by invisible pixies either.
Not really as we can only perceive a small portion of the totality of reality. Much of reality can only be theorised about using our reason rather than our senses. Indeed as David Deutsch puts it, in a sense we do live in virtual reality in that what we see is just the tip of realities iceberg.
Ah that word again. Nothing can be proven beyond any possibility of falsification. I just formed a critical preference for the theory “existence exists” and proceed upon the basis of that theoretical axiom. But if reason leads me to conclude that theory is not viable any more…