The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief—I
Anil Mitra, Copyright © November 21, 2007
|
|
|
This piece is one of a number of articles on belief:
Aspects of the psycho-sociology of belief
The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief I.html
The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief II.html
The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief III.html
There is a relatively systematic discussion of belief in Journey in Being-New World-2007
Introduction
The issue of ‘science versus religion’ tends to be dominated on both sides by people whose belief is extreme. The extremism appears to be fostered by raising ‘understanding’ to the level of absolute faith and by caricaturing and minimizing the alternative. This is done by both ‘sides’
The purposes of this discussion, continued in The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief II.html and The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief III.html, are to show the irrelevance of the extremists to truth—despite their appeal, and to show a more reasonable approach. Religion and science as activities rather than as institutions are widely misunderstood and a true understanding does not lead to some lukewarm middle ground but to a robust integration of the best features of both
Discussion
The recent debate between D'Souza and those he calls ‘atheists’ is not new. The scholastic philosophers were concerned to reconcile faith and reason. In its present form the debate goes back at least to 1860 when Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley debated the truth of evolution versus that of the Bible
If science and religion both seek truth there should be no ultimate disagreement. Since the sides are in-process—even though both sides would have you believe that they have arrived—there will be debate; debate is healthy. However, the extremist character of the debate—my view is absolutely correct, the other view is patently absurd and so on—reveals that both sides are astray
In its present form both sides represent extremes. This of course does prevent the sides from having large and vocal followings
Twentieth and twenty first century science shows its own limits especially in cosmology where it is possible to extrapolate back to a very small fraction of a second after this cosmological system is supposed to have begun in an inflationary big-bang. What happened before that? What lies outside our cosmos? Present science may speculate (bubble universes) but has no final or certain answers—in its present state, it cannot ground any definitive answer. However, it is characteristic of the history of science—working within the paradigm, the group instinct—that, except for voices from the edge, the latest science is taken to be a de facto reality. There is a certain kind of scientist—belonging to a species of positivist—who holds that if something isn't described in science it doesn't exist. This species includes some famous names—those of Paul Dirac and Stephen Hawking. Hawking’s voice is particularly shrill and hawkish. Not only is this extreme brand of positivism absurd it also means that the universe is changing as our knowledge of it changes. According to its own criteria, science is, at least so far, agnostic to whatever may or may not lie outside its boundaries. The positivist scientists of the type described (God does not exist because he is not found in current science) are irrational extremists (at least in regard of some claims about extra-scientific reality)
Science as a source of alienation. There is another brand of scientist—typified by Steven Weinberg—that extrapolates from the direction of science so far in the following way. Weinberg has said “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” The direction of science in question is the one in which science reveals more and more that human being is not at the center or the apex of creation—human being appears to be a peripheral, lonely accident. Although Weinberg is far more reasonable than Hawking his thought in this regard suffers from the following deficiencies. First, it elevates some archaic concept of the nature of meaning (the point of it all) to the concept of meaning and its nature; perhaps, though, the moment is the peak of meaning. Second, the extrapolation is from the direction of science so far to the necessary direction of ‘ultimate’ science. Although the extrapolation seems more reasonable than that of Hawking—it fits neatly with secular humanism—it has just as little basis. Though science has progressed immensely beyond mere and local anthropocentrism, its reach is perhaps still infinitesimal in relation to the entire universe—even though it may appear to define the vague limits of the universe. When all is said and done it may perhaps turn out that human being is and lies at the center and apex of meaning! Readers may immediately have very strong objections to the suggestion. A first reaction might be that this appears to be a return to anthropocentrism. However it is not for it is not being suggested that human being is center and apex any more than any other being—animal, plant, ‘mere’ matter, ideas… Perhaps, every point of the universe is center and apex. A second objection might be that these suggestions are mere speculation. However, the essays of my site http://www.horizons-2000.org argue and show that every suggestion that every suggestion labeled ‘perhaps’ in the foregoing has essential truth. Again, readers will have doubts and the full answer to these doubts lies in the essays of my site. Additionally, though, see the orientation for readers for a brief introduction to the picture that is painted in the site… A final deficiency of Weinberg’s lament is that it is an emotional reaction to a trend rather than an ‘objective’ and not merely ‘linear’ extrapolation of that trend… and one of the bases of the reaction is that, while it is based in the latest in physical science, it is also rooted, though perhaps less than consciously, in an archaic—e.g. Christian—specification of the ‘point to or meaning of life’
Imagine a graph of ‘our understanding of the point to life’ versus ‘the advance of science,’ from the origin of science to the present time. What might this graph look like? It might show a downward trend. The typical ‘alienated scientist’ extrapolates the downward trend indefinitely even though, as shown in the previous paragraph and its references, that the downward trend must be reversed in any approach to the full truth
The error of alienation thinking reveals the following general principle. In general conclusions from the advance of any discipline (1) it cannot be assumed that local trends continue indefinitely and, more importantly, (2) it is necessary to raise the level of faithfulness of all concepts in question and not merely the discipline-specific concepts (the system of metaphysical concepts has interactions)
Religion, common sense and truth. The more fundamentalist kind of Christian believes in the resurrection, in genesis and in the Day of Judgment. These beliefs are not absolutely inconsistent with the sum of current human knowledge. However, unless you grew up believing or underwent some kind of conversion, you may find it absurd to hold these beliefs as truths over the myriad alternatives. Just as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, absence of counter-proof of an argument is not proof of the argument -- yet there are fundamentalists who appear to think so. Upon questioning, fundamentalists are unable to come up with real empirical evidence. There are others who deny that empirical evidence is necessary. This is a fog screen. Given a sufficiently abstract entity, there may be rational alternatives to concrete empirical evidence -- see my site http://www.horizons-2000.org. However, wine from water is not abstract and to demonstrate its truth empirical evidence would be necessary
At the same time, wine from water may encourage questioning standard, putative truth. Science itself shows transmutation of the elements. Wine from water is colossally improbable rather than impossible. Enough energy and information may transform the elements to make carbon from hydrogen and oxygen… and ultimately water from wine (the universe made wine, did it not?) The improbability of spontaneous transformation, though is so high, as to make it effectively impossible for a human agent. Since the distinction is impossible to measure, the only basis for its absolute character is theory which does not make it impossible—quantum theory assigns it a colossally small probability. However in the realm of the universe, the distinction becomes immense. How to choose? We cannot—it seems. The metaphysics of immanence demonstrates improbability over impossibility in all realms except that of logic—water from wine in time but something cannot be simultaneously water and not water
It is a little tragic that many beliefs are rationally unnecessary to the remarkable qualities of Christ and to the valuable Christian message. The extremists of a fundamentalist nature harm religion itself
I mention Christianity because that is the background to D’Souza’s blog. There is no thought here to single out Christianity, to set aside from other religions with regard to value although there are, no doubt, distinctions of quality
Dinesh D'Souza claims to not be a fundamentalist but he is; he is just not as extreme as some. His arguments, just as those of the extremist scientists, are extreme and have in common with the positivist extremist scientists that they are off center, untrue and misleading
Of course the two camps feed off one another and it's interesting that both have followings. It's a truism, however, that votes, claps, thunderous applause, followings are not indicators of truth
The psychology of the extremists. I cannot help but wonder about the psychology of such men. They are far from unintelligent; they are, I hope, not dishonest. What does that leave? It leaves that, despite a facility with language and debate, a narcissistic preoccupation with their own premature views—whose premature character is hostage to the narcissism—and a concern to assert their premature views and that is perhaps why they love to hate one another
I must admit that D’Souza seems rather narcissistic—his preoccupations suggest some sort of personality disorder that includes narcissistic, histrionic, and asocial traits. (I sometimes prefer the term ‘asocial’ to ‘antisocial;’ antisocial might be something like asocial as lack of empathy combined with sadism as pleasure from the pain of others which should be distinguished from the association of eroticism with sexual or fetishist pain.) Asocial doesn’t mean that he doesn’t get along; it suggests heightened self-empathy and deficiency in other-empathy. I don’t know Dawkins well enough to speculate about his personality. Perhaps it is a simple vanity that resulted from fame and acclaim—his appointment to a position created for him: the first Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford that frees him from the mundane character of the standard academic life. I’d like to repeat that my criticism of Dawkins regards his ‘negative’ rather than his ‘positive’ beliefs
The contribution of both camps to humanity is one of confusion and misdirection of ideas and focus on issues that are relatively trivial—except of course for the huge cost of the advertisement of untruth which is no doubt what causes the extremist, positivist scientists ire—instead of what is fundamental
It would be a favor to humanity if the extremist camps would suddenly fall silent; that is unlikely and therefore I exhort all readers to herewith declare the absence of the emperor's clothes and, ultimately, to ignoring the ‘emperor’ altogether. Perhaps, though, I am not being reasonable for, much as we love moderation and reason, isn’t it extremism that pushes us; doesn’t freshness come from rising again, phoenix-like, from the ashes?