Are you in, or are you out?
You know how people like Massimo Pigliucci and others like to say that science has nothing to say about the supernatural? And therefore scientists who dispute religion are trespassing on other people’s territory and crossing their own borders without a passport and generally misbehaving? I’ve been thinking about that.
I googled the two words just now, and found a nice helpful item by Victor Stenger. He quotes the National Academy of Sciences:
Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about the supernatural. Whether God
exists or not is a question about which science
is neutral.
That’s good, because it says exactly what I had in mind, what I’ve been thinking about –
what I think is a crock of shit.
Here’s why: there’s no such thing as “the supernatural.” Nobody cares about some general thing called “the supernatural.” People care about particular things that could be put under the heading “supernatural” but are not “the supernatural” themselves. And many or most of the things that people care about and that can be put under the heading “supernatural” are not really supernatural in a sense that would make science unable to say anything about them. And that includes “God” – except when the deist god is meant, which in fact it almost never is.
“The supernatural” is just the name of a category, but what’s really in dispute is not a category, but a person, an agent. The supernatural is one thing, and “God” is another, and it’s a distraction to pretend that by walling off “the supernatural” from science it is possible to get science to agree that God is beyond dispute. The god that is meant when people say “God” – the god that will be in charge on National Prayer Day, when Obama tells us all to get busy praying – is not supernatural at all but heavily involved in human life. A god that really really is super-natural – altogether outside nature – is not the one that people care about and summon to tell us all what to do. The god of believers is a part of this world, however magic and elusive and tricky it is supposed to be.
So saying “science can say nothing about the supernatural” is true enough as far as it goes (because it’s true by definition), but it’s irrelevant to god-talk.
Until recently I took the view that “supernatural” was a vacuous category, since anything in it that existed would then not be supernatural.
However, Carrier has a proposed definition: that something is supernatural if it has mental properties that are not reducible to physical properties. This would include any mental effect that lacked a physical cause, or any mental cause not mediated via physical mechanisms.
This definition seems to me to be non-vacuous (we could in principle detect and study supernatural occurrences if there were any) and to be at least within shouting distance of how people actually use the word (a consideration which is important for Carrier’s philosophy). I’m not entirely convinced by it, but it seems worth a shot.
Also, the definition of the word supernatural, that some people use, make the word define itself to be an empty set. Supernatural is supposed to be outside of natural, but since no one has shown anything to be outside of natural then the word has no meaning. Even fiction is natural because it is a common occurrence by humans. It is inventions by humans and has effects on humans.
But Andrew, lots of physicalists are happy to say that there are mental properties that don’t reduce to physical ones. Anomalous monism, for instance, denies the reduction of a mental type down to a physical type. Reductionism isn’t a very helpful criterion.
It could be that there are mental effects that lack physical causes, and yet these are irreducible. But anything irreducible is ungoverned by bridging laws. In that case, it’s entirely unlikely that science can say boo about them, simply because science demands repeatability, and lawlike behavior can be discovered through repeated experiments.
The NAS statement is clearly, and intentionally, accommodationist. Which I would buy into, if they would change is a question about which science is neutral to is a question irrelevant to science.
What should be challenged is the notion that science can somehow be reconciled with belief in supernatural agency. In an Edge debate with David Sloan Wilson, Natalie Angier brought this point home:
I went to the Cornell website and came up with this example of how two different questions were treated. On the “Ask an Astronomer” website, to the query, “do most astronomers believe in God based on the available evidence?” astronomer Dave Chernoff replied that, in his opinion, modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God. People who believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions. He cited the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent. The probabilistic realms of quantum mechanics raise the possibility of “God intervening every time a measurement occurs.” He concluded that, ultimately, science can never prove or disprove the existence of God and religious belief doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have anything to do with scientific reasoning. Notice how much less kind was the response to a reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology: “No, astronomers do not believe in astrology,” said Dave Chernoff. “It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.” He ended his dismissal with the assertion that in science “one does not need a reason not to believe in something. Skepticism is the default position and one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something’s existence.” In other words, for horoscope fans, the burden of proof is entirely on them—poor gullible gits. But for the multitude to believe that, in one way or another, religious divine intelligence guides the path of every leaping lepton …that’s OK.
I apologize for all the bad HTML shit.
Here’s the Natalie Angier link:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/angier_wilson07/angier_wilson07.html
If Caspar the Friendly Ghost can walk unhindered through walls or if light travels through him so he’s invisible, he’s ‘supernatural’ by dint of not interacting with the natural world and therefore not open to scientific enquiry.
If he can talk to people or throw things around the room he’s not supernatural because he’s interacting with the world of natural things.
There’s no point praying to the supernatural Caspar because even if he gives a shit what you are asking about he can’t help you without abandoning the supernatural world. At that point he would become part of the natural world and therefore subject to tha laws and limitations of that world, as well as open to scientific enquiry.
Often what people mean by “supernatural” is an entity that is capable of violating the laws of physics at will. But this represents both a profound misunderstanding of what the laws of physics really are, and an assertion of infinite knowledge on the part of the speaker.
Part of the problem has to do with the word “law.” A law of nature is often viewed as a constraint that natural objects must obey, when really it is just a convenient way for humans to summarize the properties that they have observed. Every physical model of our universe thus far invented is an approximation, and there is no reason to believe that the current “fundamental” laws of nature are any different. We don’t know what something so simple as an electron really is, but it certainly does not consist of an efficient subroutine for solving the Dirac equation. The Dirac equation is just a highly accurate (but surely approximate) way for humans to describe the behavior that humans have managed to observe thus far.
If tomorrow a bunch of us skeptics see Jesus ride down out of the heavens on a cloud and start hurling sinners into a lake of fire, that would in no way entitle us to conclude that any laws of nature had been broken. “Jesus” could just be an alien using advanced technology based on laws of nature that we already know, or he could be taking advantage of laws of nature that we are currently unaware of. But to assert that his behavior is supernatural because it appears to break our known laws of physics is to assert that our known laws of physics are exact and complete — that they hold true not just as approximations in the very limited domain over which we have tested them, but as exact laws that permit no violations in any domain. In other words, we would be asserting that science is now finished and we know everything there is to know and everything that can ever be known.
And yet religious believers like to call scientists “arrogant.”
What O.B. said!!!
Here’s my extra spin on it: “It’s supernatural” means “I can’t explain it.” But this does not mean “I have an opinion about how it works.” Ignorance is not an explanation! “I can’t explain it” means “I do not have an opinion about how it works.”
So when people object to your dismissal of their “beliefs” regarding the “supernatural”, tell them to relax. They is no need for them to defend beliefs they don’t even have.
I’s go further than Roy. The assertion “Its Supernatural” actually means “I can avoid having to explain it, or even proffer evidence for my notion, so there!”
It is a ‘get out of free’ card for avoiding inquisitorial examination, and the NAS are not the only US organisation that sidles up to this godly-coddling political pearl-clutching anti-intellectual garbage.
Benjamin Nelson:
Science only demands repeatability if you use a very narrow definition of science. Wait, not even then I think. Can we repeat the big bang? Of course not, it is a one-off event. Nevertheless, we infer something about it. Every historical event is irreproducible, but historians still reconstruct history. So in principle, researchers could address even a singular intervention of a god, would probably only have to be massive enough.
Many people have an attitude to a wide and eclectic mix of things they claim to believe in that might as well be a general buy-in to ‘supernaturalism’. From healing crystals to crop-circles via vampires, werewolves and guardian angels…
Ditto what Kenneth Pidcock said.
All people do when they say something is supernatural – is tell me that it is basically imaginary.
If it wasn’t it would simply be a bit of the natural universe we didn’t understand yet.
Anyway, I am surprised at the lack of a response to the “warning” being issued by radical muslims to the creators of South Park.
OT shameless self-promotion ahoy damnit
Mintman, I like what you’re trying to say, but it’s the wrong argument. Repeatability refers to experimental findings, not specific events. So while we can’t repeat the Big Bang (excepting in a handful of cosmological models), we can repeat the experiments that support the Big Bang theory. The earliest convincing finding was the accidental discovery of cosmic background radiation. The CBR has been detected and its properties refined in numerous experiments, so the finding has passed the repeatability test.
Jesus (Joshua bar Joseph to his contemporaries) never made any claims to scientific knowledge as far as I know except one; and in that he was spectacularly wrong, which is most surprising in view of the claim that he was the son of Jehovah and in direct communication with him most of the time. Joseph (not his biological father) taught him more about what he knew (carpentry mainly) than God passed down to him. God devised a universe whose running was fairly well described by Newton, better described by Einstein, and just as well by quantum theory. Even Ptolemy’s model of the solar system clunked along well enough. But Jesus knew none of it; his one scientific proposition being that the insane are possessed by demons.
As THE supernatural source of natural knowledge, God let him down badly. Very badly indeed. (Exit stage right muttering and shaking head.)
OK, I’ve corrected their statement:
“Science is a way of knowing about the natural
world. It is limited to explaining the natural
world through natural causes. Science can say
nothing about anything that does not interact with the natural world.
Whether a God, Gods or any entity exists that does not interact with the natural world is a question about which science is neutral.”
Hmm, to dismiss a statement from the NAS has “a crock of shit” isn’t the best example of critical thinking, or civil discourse. But then again, I have come to expect as much (or is it as little?) about this controversy after the unbelievably bullish rant by PZ Myers. This is *not* helpful, though I assume it may make some people feel better about dismissing others’ opinions by way of insults. That’s what bullying is, yes?
“Hmm”
Harrumph, more like.
“to dismiss a statement from the NAS”
One person’s dismissal is another person’s critical thinking. Especially when reasoned argument is involved rather than censorious appeals to vague and unevenly applied social standards.
“This is *not* helpful”
It depends what the objective is.
I find it very helpful. I don’t find your comments very helpful.
“That’s what bullying is”
Cry me a wolf.
Massimo Pigliucci
Ophelia doesn’t dismiss it as a “crock of shit”, she calls it a crock of shit and then explains why, in her opinion, it is a crock of shit. The presence of actual reasons lifts it into being reasoned discourse.
Your argument rests on the assertion that the atheists on this issue are being “bullish” and unreasoning, yet this is nothing more than arguing tone which is a form of ad hominem. You further rest on this being the NAS saying it, which is little more than an appeal to authority.
Now quite frankly if you have issues with Ophelia or PZ Myers’ arguments, state them. If all you are concerned with is how they couch them, or that they contradict people you see as authorities, then kindly recognise that you really have nothing.
(Shameless self-promotion: My views on respect)
Massimo,
does not make a lot of practical difference, though. If somebody makes this argument without poo-poo words, you ignore it. If they make it with them, you complain about the style. Ever care to address it? Again: what is supernatural and what isn’t, and most importantly, why precisely could or should a scientist not examine faith healing, miraculous resurrections or the statistical likelihood of appeasing a postulated rain god with ritual sacrifices?
Chris Lawson:
That’s right of course, but he wrote simply that “science demands repeatability”. Miraculous divine intervention would be an irreproducible one-off occurrence like any historical event, and nobody argues we cannot say anything about the Cretaceous-Tertiary-Event just because it is not repeated or repeatable, and there is little we could do experimentally. We can still in principle marshal evidence to make an assessment of the likelihood of miraculous events. For example, I imagine that remaining traces of the parting of the Red Sea could theoretically be found if it had actually happened.
Massimo, surely the statement that something is ‘a crock of shit’, as in this case, is just a way of speaking about nonsense. And the NAS statement is literally nonsense. It does not give any basis for the claim that science cannot say anything about the supernatural, but it does suggest that talking about the supernatural is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The NAS statement just leaves that word there as a placeholder for people’s uncomfirmable beliefs, while suggesting that they may indeed be beliefs about something.
But surely, from the scientific point of view, wherever it is thought that the supernatural intersects with the empirical world – and most believers in the supernatural believes that it does – the supernatural becomes accessible to confirmation or disconfirmation. And that’s how this particular statement comes to be a ‘crock of shit’. It’s a form or words pretending to be a statement, but the NAS didn’t bother to give it any meaning. And if it has no meaning, then it is, literally, empty, which is what the rather rude term ‘crock of shit’ is saying. It may not be polite, but it’s a way of saying what needs to be said, that scientific bodies are playing footsie with words, and, instead of limiting themselves to what can be said, leave the suggestion that, from the standpoint of science, religious language has a perfectly reasonable use. But upon that question science can say a few things, and probably should.
[…] belief, commentary — tildeb @ 9:22 am Over at ButtefliesandWheels, Ophelia Benson has posted her argument why the supposed wall of separation between science and the supernatural that allows them to be […]
Oh for heaven’s sake, Massimo – really? Really? You really find “a crock of shit” that appalling? As a preface to reasons, as opposed to a stand-alone dismissal?
Seriously?
(Furthermore: if you do, then what about Michael De Dora’s one word dismissal of Deepak Chopra at Rationally Speaking? What about his oh so funny “Why Jerry Coyne is wrong” joke? Your gross double standard has been becoming dismayingly obvious lately.)
@Massimo Pigliucci:
You know what’s not helpful? Telling everybody that they need to take Philo 101. Or giving people a list of recommended reading they must finish before they’re even ALLOWED to discuss philosophical ideas. Or saying that so-and-so’s notions of metaphysics or epistemology are naive and then utterly failing to back the assertion up with any sort of argument, no matter how many people ask you to justify it.
You seem to be arguing against the notion that the concept of “supernatural” is incoherent. That is essentially what Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, Benson, and everyone else you’re condescending to is arguing. That if a phenomenon is causally efficacious, then it can be studied, that it’s NATURAL, and conversely, if it’s not natural, it’s not causally efficacious. And if it’s not causally efficacious, then it has no effects. And if it has no effects, then there’s no reason to believe it exists in the first place. Right?
In this scheme, “supernatural” is used in the natural language sense, and may be better expressed as “paranormal.” For instance, if ghosts exist, presumably they would fall under the natural language heading “supernatural,” but if they’re visible, then they must emit photons which would be detectable in an experiment. As a radiative source, ghosts could be studied through science the same way pretty much any radiative source is. So while ghosts would be “supernatural” in a common language sense, they’re perfectly amenable to scientific investigation. Or “natural” in the sense that Coyne et al are using it.
I haven’t seen you actually give a good reason to discount any of the preceding. And I really hate this “You’re not qualified to argue with me,” bullshit. Feynman’s criterion for understanding something was that he could explain it to a small child. When you refuse to connect even with very intelligent adults with good capacity for abstract thought, I have to assume maybe it’s you who’s not understanding. Your pearl clutching only goes to reinforce this impression.
And no, for the record, that is not bullying. Bullying would be more like telling prominent scientists that they’re unqualified to talk about the nature of physical reality because they haven’t read the right books (such a move seems like a ploy to push these people out of the debate entirely).
How about if I remove “crock of shit” and replace it with “consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers”? Will that be better?
Consider it done. I’m not actually going to do it, but you can imagine it done. Consider it supernatural.
The thing is, I didn’t write this post solely for the sake of calling a claim – let alone a person or an institution or both – a crock of shit (or a load of old cobblers, either). I didn’t even write it mostly or significantly for that reason. I wrote it because I really am interested in the claim, both in what’s wrong with it, and in why people offer it as if it were obviously reasonable. It just is interesting that people insist on the reasonableness of believing in a god that loves humans and listens (at least) to prayers and that is also “supernatural” and immune to scientific inquiry.
And just to underline the point: it is less than reasonable or accurate for Massimo to talk about “dismissing others’ opinions by way of insults” and then call that bullying when “dismissing” is exactly what I did not do. As others have pointed out, I “insulted” the claim by way of preface but then I gave reasons.
As far as I can tell, there’s nothing in the methods of science which state out, in advance, what can and can’t be studied, and which mark off any distinctions between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural.’ I also like Richard Carrier’s definition of “supernatural” — not just because it tracks with how the word is actually used, and what it’s applied to — but because it makes naturalism falsifiable, and allows supernaturalists a way to make their best case.
And I also agree with Ophelia, that the NAS statement is a consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers — traditional, but simply not up to current standards. Plainly set out, God is supposed to be an irreducible disembodied Mind (or set of Values) which did not evolve within an environment. It creates and moves matter around by applying intentional psychokenetic force, and communicates directly to humans through various versions of extra-sensory perception.
I do think you could take this apart and look to see if there’s a consistency with the discoveries of modern science. There’s nothing untestable in principle here.
Lots of people believe that a magician who has been trained in stated ways (and wh0 has to have testicles but mustn’t be known to have used them) can supernaturally transform a wafer into a substance that has beneficial effect on someone who eats it, different from the effect of a wafer over which no spell has been cast. Science could investigate that. We could do a double blind trial in which randomly selected believers eat randomly assigned magicked and ordinary wafers.
So far from science ‘not being able to investigate the supernatural’, the whole history of science has been investigating phenomena which people took to be supernatural (eg the moon being eaten by a magic dragon during an eclipse), and arriving at better, natural, explanations. And science has a lot to say about all sorts of self-styled magicians, from homeopaths to water diviners, namely that they can’t do their magic under controlled conditions in the presence of professional conjurors.
That doesn’t (I think) completely rule out the possibility that there are real magicians, but they can’t do magic under controlled conditions. Science can still say something about them, for example that their magic works better if the believer pays a lot for it.
Actually, Nicholas, we only need to point out that bishops and priests are just as likely to be nasty as the lowly sheep who have not received the laying-on of hands, and that any amount of sacred wafers makes no difference. We already have all the evidence we need.
As I understand it, the Christian position is:
God made the world, so he’s not part of it, in a way analagous to a painter’s not being part of the painting.
BUT Christians also claim that God takes an active part in his creation, even to the extent of becoming incarnate within it. Moreover, they and Jews and Muslims think that God inspires people to do this or say that and performs miracles of various kinds.
So I do not see how it is possible to set aside the simple fact that according to these religions God is involved in the world, and if this is so his effects on the world would be evidence and can be examined rationally.
If the religious cannot provide a rational explanation for their “inspiration” they cannot justify the claims of bishops and imams to speak with any authority of any kind.
gordonwillis: “As I understand it, the Christian position is: God made the world, so he’s not part of it, in a way analagous to a painter’s not being part of the painting.”
Interesting metaphor. The 3-in-1 artist is however constantly retouching his canvas in response to requests from oil-and-pigment depictions of individuals therein. And occasionally he is outraged enough by their ingratitude and misbehaviour to take the paint scraper to a number of them, pour encourager les autres.
Hardly surprising that his Rembrandts and Contables so often turn into Picassos and Dalis.
Well, quite. So the evidence is: he hasn’t even got style!
Mintman, I was overly broad in my statement, I admit.
As Chris pointed out, the Big Bang is something we have inferred on the basis of a lattice-web of generalizations, reliable astronomical observations, and the discovery of background radiation.
But my point, when taken in its context, was rather more restricted in scope. I wasn’t talking about all of science. I meant that, when it comes to establishing our knowledge of natural laws, inductive inference (i.e., repeatability) may not be sufficient, but it’s necessary. I may be wrong about that, and would happy to be corrected on the matter, but your example doesn’t do the work.
Let me put it another way. Suppose that you think that a one-off event exists such that a) it cannot be shown to have a physical cause, and b) that this absence of evidence is best explained by supposing that the event has no physical cause. But how can you possibly make the case for either without appeal to lawlike generalizations? It’s not like we have any cause-o-meters on hand. And once we appeal to laws, we’re seemingly left with a physicalistic explanation.
There are painters who do make themselves part of the painting both iconographically (self portraits) and technically (the inclusion of bodily fluids in the palette or the use of the body as a canvas). Even with those artists who don’t (and without the need for a Romantic “putting oneself into the work”) you can still see the brushwork and identify the style.
If God put fossils under the ground just to fool us would make him a Simulationist; a kind of cosmic Sherrie Levine or Jeff Koons.
;-)
Let’s not get hung up on this bit. It seems very tempting, but my point is that the religions with which we are most concerned insist that the supernatural, in the form of “God”, is actively involved in the world, having real effects on people and events, which means that this supernatural being has effects which can be verified – or not – by science. This contradicts the view that science can say nothing about it. And, as I said earlier (#29), the religious, by their behaviour, provide sufficient evidence to disprove what they say about the nature of their god.
I’ve just realised that I spelt “analogous” incorrectly. Well, I can only type with two fingers, and strange things happen all the time when I get on a keyboard. Apologies all round.
I don’t mind that – but I urge using the neuter pronoun for God!
It’s not just that nobody knows God is a he, and it’s not just that it reinforces the assumption that God is a he; it’s also that the neuter pronoun is a reminder that nobody knows God is a person. “He” sounds way too human.
OK, God isn’t a “he”. It’s just that they always tell us that God is a “he”, so I suppose one gets into the habit, as it were. In any case, I reckon “He” is human, whatever they say, and largely because of what they say, even when they insist that “he” isn’t.
Also, they positively INSIST that God is a person. Or three persons. Or even the apotheosis of personhood (perhaps I should change that to “fatherhood” — sorry, “Fatherhood”). I think we need to deal with what they say, and not waste time with interesting philosophical debates about “The Nature of the Supernatural”. That way we just let them sidetrack us. We can deal with their idea of the supernatural, and that’s the idea that really matters. Why should they be allowed to hide behind philosophical puzzles when what they really want is to determine how we should live our lives?
I know, everybody gets into the habit, which is exactly why non-believers at least should get out of the habit. So should believers who don’t believe anybody knows details like what is god’s gender.
In fact everybody should get out of the habit of using the male pronoun except to refer to a known male.
I agree. I would like to add: no matter what they think their god looks like, and no matter whether these pronouncements are “sincere beliefs” or “philosophical puzzles”, in no case does it follow that they get to tell us what to do.
When I was a choirboy we sang anthems like “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” So they are quite certain that God is a he. Do you think it is possible to persuade them that “it” or even “It” is more accurate?
Roy
Absolutely. The language is irrelevant, because it’s their idea anyway. We just have to point to the “crock of shit” and tell them what they can do with themselves.
Ophelia
Yes. That’s perfectly right. Always remembering that to Christians at least, god is a known male:
John 1:18: The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he made him known (E V Rieu’s transalation).
No, Christians just think they know that god is male. But they shouldn’t think that. It’s just something written in a book – they don’t know god wrote it, they don’t know it wasn’t mistranscribed later, they don’t know it was translated correctly – they don’t know what they think they know and they don’t even know they don’t know it. Donald Rumsfeld could teach them a thing or two.
Strictly speaking, they don’t even think they know that. When have they considered the question of whether they know that? Never. They don’t have an opinion about it, what they have is a slogan. They say they know. Why? Because that’s what you’re supposed to say.
Well, isn’t that what belief is about? People think they know something? But it seems to me that if we want to understand what is meant by “god” we should ask the people who claim to know. After all, it is only from Bertrand Russell that I know anything about celestial teapots, and who am I to tell him that he doesn’t understand their true nature?
This is how we describe it when we’re not being careful. If we’re being careful, if we want to describe it precisely, “they say they know something” is more accurate than “they think they know something”. Religion is more about saying you know than it is about knowing, or even thinking-you-know.
And if we are not careful we can confuse “belief” with “religion”. I am talking about belief per se. Many beliefs have no religious reference whatsoever: it just so happens that some of the ones that bother me do. Besides, saying that you know something is not at all the same as actually thinking you know it. Also, it seems to me in my innocence that many religious people sincerely think they know, and are not merely saying they do.
Well it just isn’t true that it’s always and necessarily more precise to say “they say they know something” rather than “they think they know something.” Sometimes – often – people do think they know something when they don’t.
You don’t know that – not about everyone; not about “they” in total.
In a way we’re saying the same thing – that a lot of people who follow conventional wisdom on this subject don’t think about it enough to realize that they don’t know what they think they know/say they know. But there are shades and gradations – there are degrees of not thinking about it enough.
Don’t have time to read all the comments, and someone has probably said this already, but practically speaking, in my not particularly scientific mind, science has a critical part to play with regard to the supernatural. When people ask me how I can deny the existence of God or the supernatural in the face of inexplicable phenomena, miracles, ghost sightings, and so on, I say that just because there is something I don’t understand, it doesn’t mean there is no rational explanation for it.* That’s where science comes in. Science is the best way we have to attempt to understand the mysteries of the universe.
* Especially true for me, given that I still don’t really understand how a television works or even an internal combustion engine.
Ophelia, Roy: perhaps we could say, then, that we (humans) are prone to believe things for various causes which don’t always amount to what could be called reasons?
For example, when my mother broke a small mirror she was very cross with herself. “Why?” asked little I. “Because it means seven years’ bad luck!”
Being little, I might have picked this up and added it to my infant data-base about the world, and in time to come it might have become one of many beliefs that I had acquired “on trust” in such a way. As it happens, it was merely a puzzling incident. Now it puzzles me to wonder why an intelligent woman should have believed it; or was it a case of not actually believing it but, in the event, being the victim of a primeval fear that some statement made by people she trusted (like her own parents, perhaps) might be true “after all”? Children are natural devices for building a picture of the world, and trust is a big thing. We naturally leave aside the flippant question of how luck can be guaranteed.
Then consider how it might be for a child to hear every day (or every Thursday) of her childhood fearsome “authorities”, much respected by “the community”, declaring in ringing tones: “And thou shalt not take up a mirror to break it, for in the day that thou doest it verily thou shalt suffer, yea, even unto seven times the three-hundred-and-sixty-fifth day thereafter.” Frightening. How could one not be terrified into believing every word, especially when all the grown-ups get very cross when one breaks mirrors, as one does? [Holy mirrors? I’m sure we could invent a wonderful theology of mirrors.]
And then we grow up, and the beliefs stay there in our minds, till some despicable rationalist tells us it’s all rubbish. And this is very annoying, because it threatens everything on which we have built our lives and — perhaps more important — our hopes. So we react with hostility, and talk about faith, and find reassuring declarations in the Runes of the Ancients (because the problem is hardly new). And none of it has anything to do with reason.
Reason comes in when clever people, unwilling to give up their acquired beliefs, or uncomfortable about the challenges they suddenly confront, conclude that the battle must be taken into the enemy’s camp. Isn’t all theology mere apologetics?
Sorry, it wasn’t originally all one paragraph. Something wrong with the formatting? Hope you can read it.
“Isn’t all theology mere apologetics?”
Certainly.
“there are shades and gradations – there are degrees of not thinking about it enough.”
You’re right. I don’t know that no one thinks these things through at all.
My main point is more subtle: that some of things people say they’ve thought through cannot be thought through because they’re not thoughts, just slogans. But it was overreaching, it was sloppy, to pronounce so generally on “everyone’s” thought-processes.
Hello, L A Jones. Yes, it is really difficult to defend a position when you know that the other side is not talking sense but you just don’t have enough information to convince them. Religion claims to offer a complete view of the world, and one feels challenged when one is sure that one’s knowledge is less than complete, as of course (and as you point out) it must be. But they’re just bluffing. Try asking these people why they are so sure of their evidence. What is the source of their information? Do they know for certain that claim x has been tested in properly conducted double-blind experiments? Who carried the experiments out? What was the nature of the experiments and what were the results? Are there published statistics? If they cannot answer these questions, you only need to point out that they have no rational basis for their assertions. If they say that “there are more things in heaven and earth” etc. you could point out that they have been attempting to use reason to support their arguments and they can’t have it both ways. It’s worth a try. Good luck.
There you go, Roy – it’s a subtle and interesting point, so it’s worth making in that way. I think it’s right, too. I spend a good deal of my time saying things along the same lines.