There are two popular new-agey ideas floating around out there involving Religious Compatibilism.
The first is the idea that different religions are variants on the same thing. Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, they’re all different ways of getting at the same core truth.
Funny how the more intense believers, including any fundamentalists, will vehemently disagree. These religions all have tenets in common - but they all have tenets that are also strongly opposed. Simply because they have SOME things in common - simply because they are religions, and thus involve faith and metaphysics, doesn’t mean they involve the SAME faith and the SAME metaphysics.
Some people may believe in a set of “intangibles” that all religions share. That doesn’t mean that people who strictly adhere to those religions are willing to abandon the beliefs that set them apart from other belief systems.
But that’s less important, because of course all religions are wrong. The more important distinction, the more frustrating one, is when people assert that SCIENCE and RELIGION are compatible - which they most certainly are not.
People love to point out that science cannot disprove god. Unfortunately they are correct. Science cannot disprove Santa, either. What science can do is to say the following: “until there is evidence FOR God, there is no reason to believe in a God. And by Occam’s Razor, no reason to believe in God is plenty of reason to NOT believe in God.” Scientifically, the proper stance is atheism, just as scientifically it makes sense to disbelieve in Santa (although in both cases, it’s technically possible that we discover that we’re wrong). Religion and science are NOT compatible, no more than Santa Claus and Science are compatible.
Actually, Hinduism believes all religions are different paths to the same thing: realization of Brahman. Taoism is also a path to something that can be interpreted as Brahman. Buddhism is not a religion as such, but a philosophy that can be combined with religions. Gnosticism, a form of Christianity, also accepted other religions.
It’s only the orthodox members of Abrahamic religions that argue they are not compatible.
Please read Aldous Huxley’s “The Perennial Philosophy”, an attempt to find the common elements among major religions.
And there are those who will argue with you that science is a matter of faith and belief.
Occam’s Razor is not part of science, it is part of philosophy.
And why should science be in the business of making normative judgments about what we should believe? The business of science is to explain what is the case in the natural world. That’s it. Any introduction of normativity becomes philosophy - ethics and epistemology. Otherwise, science compromises its objectivity and should just be ignored altogether. Since it would be absurd to reject science altogether, we must let science be what it is - an instrument to learn what is the case - and not a forced system of ethics of belief. Otherwise, it becomes just as dogmatic as religion. And don’t tell me that the difference is that religion causes evil and science does not. The Nazis and the atomic bomb were both very scientific, not to mention the global warming problem. People are evil, not science, not religion, at least not inherently.
kidA41,
Sound judgment. IMHO, however, it is the split of religion and science into incompatible camps that denies the importance of either in any advance of human thought. Neither science nor religion is the savior! Both are human endeavors to make sense of the world we find ourselves in.
You have the handle. Good post. Let me commend you on your extraordinary thoughts and that is from one who believes a different way. A Christian theism.
I am from a philosophic background, and I too believe that the field of science should not intrude on that of religion, which, as far as I am concerned, is within the field of philosophy. There is plenty of room for disagreement among the philosophers about whether any theist belief is right or wrong, just as there are bitter disagreements in pistic science, while staying within their own field. The edges are never sharp though, and there will always be some influx of ideas between philosophy and science.
Actually, I have come to be somewhat comfortable with science. I have no arguement with most of science. It is only when they seek to disprove something that they can’t possibly disprove . (Theism) that the irrational arguements start to abound.
"But believing is not up to us, for it [what we believe in] must be either true or false. "
On the Soul -Aristotle
Ironically, two of the most famous were created by David Hume, a fellow atheist. These two arguments are the problem of induction and the problem of causality; the latter Kant tries to solve in his “Critique of Pure Reason”.
Nor should religion intrude on science, as some attempt to do with creationism, which I find utterly disgusting.
Science doesn’t attempt to prove or disprove God, it’s nothing but a description of nature. It doesn’t have to try and disprove it, it’s the theists who have to prove it, burden of proof is on them. But I have nothing against them having faith, just don’t try and push theism on science.
I’m not sure whether Buddhism ought be classified as a ‘philosophy’, I think that it occupies the same place as religion for practitioners, makes religious claims, ect.
Just because it doesn’t make some of the monodominant claims that Ahambric religions do, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion. I think that sort of claim states Ahambric religions as ‘religion’ and everything else is playing catch-up.
As for religious compatibalism, that has been the norm throughout history. It wasn’t until the tribal god replaced the all-god as the head of the pantheon that exclusivity became important.
When comparing Western and Eastern religions, I find that Western religions are much more dogmatic. In that sense, Western religions are more theological while Eastern religions are more philosophical (they are both a mix of philosophy and theology). Eastern religions are a guide to life without directly telling you how to live your life (that’s the beauty of it!). By Western religions’ standards, most Eastern religioins would actually be classified as atheistic. Eastern religions focus more on spirituality than dogmatic practice while it is the opposite for western.
Is science not within the field of philosophy too?
I must disagree. Theists, by defintition, do not have any burden of proof to bear - its a leap of faith.
Likewise, I feel an atheist must assume some existance of God first, before questioning the lack of proof. Only the lack of proof then causes one to withold a decision, and to disregard 'belief" in the supernatural all-together.
Therefore, the only logical position is to ignore both theist and atheist positions, for either agnosticism or deism. Now then, I am pretty sure Hume is in the deist camp, and I fail to see how you could call him an atheist?
I have always felt the whole theist v atheist debate to be a false dichotomy, and have concluded both sides are full o’ shit. God is not demonstrably supernatural, nor can science test the supernatural, by definition. If it can be tested, then its natural.
If I see a miracle that is beyond known science, or in fact flies in the face of knwn science, I will then have to reconsider what ‘supernatural’ is, until then I like to play with the concept of metaphysics and NOT supernaturality.
In as much as God is natural, then that aspect of God can then be known… assuming we trust our senses. I liken this to the old “God is knowledge” stuff…
Science is not the domain for the supernatural, nor is religion the proper domain of knowing the natural world.
What Islam and Christianity do, however, is threaten the unbeliever with Hell. Scientifically, the proper stance may be atheism, but, as you say, it is technically possible that you’ll discover you’re wrong. You probably don’t want to discover that you will spend the rest of your eternity in constant, excruciating pain. So you’d better believe in Jesus/Allah.
The practice of both Islam and Christianity is terrorism.
Terrorism is not intrinsically wrong, if that’s what you mean. And to those who actually believe in Allah or Jesus, it will not be terrorism but a well-meant warning.
It is funny that multiple such creeds exist, as the ultimate argument against such ideological terrorism is: “but what if they are right?” Hence in South Park, the Mormons are right, and all the Muslims and other sectarian Christians go to Hell, just like everyone else.
“Islam is terrorism” is NOT a normative statement. “Islam is BAD” is a normative statement. “Islam is terrorism” is a statement that can be objectively verified or falsified (although I’d go with ‘falsified’ myself).
The fact that we connect terrorism with badness is what is normative - but that was never stated.
More importantly, “science says we should not believe in god” is not normative in the least. As you point out, science is method for describing and explaining the natural world. The methods of science say “barring evidence to the contrary, the natural world contains no god”, just as they say the same for Santa. That isn’t normative - it’s a statement of existence.
You are assuming the placement of God in an epistemic category where He/She/It does not in fact belong: the category of ideas for which evidence is to be expected.
There are several epistemic categories that house ideas for which the whole idea of evidence is irrelevant. One of these, which I present here because it is easy to understand and so illustrates what I’m trying to say (even though God does not belong in this category either), contains statements of personal preference or aesthetic appreciation: “I like ice cream.” “I love you.” “I am afraid of heights.” It would obviously be absurd to say to someone, “Until there is evidence FOR you liking ice cream, there is no reason to believe that you do.”
Another epistemic category, more relevant to this discussion, contains realities that can only be experienced subjectively and/or only inferred. Consciousness is one of these. It cannot be objectively demonstrated to exist, but none of us is capable of actually believing that it does not, because it is subjectively impossible to doubt. There is no point in looking for evidence that consciousness exists, however; none will be found. The universe as a whole is another. It is impossible to observe the universe as a whole, because all acts of observation involve a separation and interaction between two entities, the observer and the phenomenon observed. Since the universe as a whole contains all portions of reality, it also includes all potential observers. If an observer is separated from the rest of reality so that it can observe that remainder, then what it is observing is not the whole universe, because it excludes the observer itself. For this reason, as with consciousness evidence in favor of the universe’s existence is not to be expected and will not be found; yet to doubt the existence of the whole while affirming the existence of the parts is logically preposterous.
God is related both to consciousness and to the universe. It is the idea of an all-pervading consciousness, and the idea that the universe has a mind associated with it. Evidence for either of these concepts is not to be expected, and so the absence of such evidence is empty of significance.
Of course, if you begin with a ridiculously oversimplistic idea of “God” as some sort of old bearded dude in the sky, an object contained within the universe that should be observable but that manifests supernatural powers, then yes, that idea should be subject to the normal requirement of evidence. However, that idea is not God. It is a caricature of God.
No, what you say is entirely wrong. I think it is obviously ridiculous to NOT have those ideas demand evidence. Whether or not a person likes ice cream certainly requires evidence. Now, an individual already has evidence about whether or not he likes ice cream - the reason it’s ridiculous to demand further proof is that there can be no proof external to him, and he already knows the internal data. So it’s ridiculous, pragmatically, to tell someone that they can’t be sure they like ice cream until they have external evidence - because a) such evidence doesn’t exist, and b) the important evidence is internal anyway, and they already have that evidence.
The point is this - what if you’ve hung out with someone for about a year, gotten to know them fairly well, and someone else asks of you, “does so-and-so like ice cream?” Well, if you’ve never heard so-and-so profess his love for ice cream, and never seen him eat it, you’d probably say “not to the best of my knowledge”. You don’t have evidence FOR him liking ice cream, so you hedge the bet that he doesn’t, but you know that you could be wrong. Very much an evidence-related issue.
Think of the occasions where someone asks you “do you like X”, and you really aren’t sure, probably because you don’t have much experience with it. “I don’t know”, you reply, and you try some more X to determine whether or not you like it. This is precisely the process of gathering evidence to verify or falsify a conjecture.
The same distinction - of internal evidence vs. external evidence - applies to your claims about consciousness as well.
Absolutely ridiculous. This is a fine definition of god, and one that is shared by plenty (although a definite minority) of people - but to imply that it is the only definition, or even the most common or best definition, is ludicrous. Most people think of god as an isolated yet all-powerful consciousness, as opposed to an all-pervading one. Most people think of god as being fairly anthropomorphic. However, even for the definition you prefer, evidence is absolutely to be expected.
Think of consciousness again. I have loads of internal evidence for consciousness - I know its qualia, subjectively what it feels like. I can also correlate (internally) my consciousness with things about me that are externally observable - my decision-making processes, my empathy, and so on. When I observe these things in objects that seem already similar to me, that is absolutely evidence for consciousness. It isn’t PROOF of consciousness, but empiricism never provides proof of anything, beyond the experience itself. And you can say (justifiably) that it is weak evidence - but evidence it remains. Consciousness IS something that requires evidence, just as Having Toes is something that requires evidence. And like Having Toes, it’s a natural assumption to make about someone who acts and looks similar to you. But like Having Toes, you can be presented with evidence to the contrary - if someone seems to not really process input, to think about things in a way that suggests the integration of multiple lines of thought, and so on. In other words, consciousness is falsifiable, and thus empirically based in the standard “evidence” sense.
So is your definition of god.
I agree with you that that notion of God is ridiculous - but surely you must realize that there is no such thing as a correct or an incorrect definition. That definition of God that we both agree is stupid is closer to what most people on the planet believe than your definition. Your definition is less ridiculous, but still pretty obviously something to disbelieve, barring evidence to the contrary. Sure, the universe might have a mind associated with it - but why would we believe that without being shown a direct reason (being either evidence, or logical argument)? There is obviously no physical evidence of such a being, and all attempts at logical argument have been not just faulty, but downright terrible. Best to not believe in either their god or your god for now (although if you have a good logical argument or piece of evidence, I’d be glad to hear it).
What do we mean by “proof”? Do we not mean evidence that can be communicated from one person to another, so as to convince the person it is being shown to to believe in what is being proposed? Of course we do; that is what “evidence” is about, and absent the context of one person proving something to another person, the word has no meaning. If “there is no proof external to him,” then there is no proof, period.
What would “evidence” that someone likes ice cream consist of? Seeing them eat it, and having them tell you that they like it, right? But it’s possible to eat something one doesn’t like, and if one has even mediocre acting ability, to do so while acting as if one likes it. It’s also very possible to lie. The point here is that if something is purely subjective, no objective evidence of the proposition can exist. It is possible for me to communicate to you the fact that I like ice cream (which I do), but not to prove to you that I like it.
No. It has some relevance to that process, but it is NOT that process, because in all cases where evidence is actually gathered for that purpose, one is intending to present it as proof.
Suppose that the question is whether or not you like sushi, and you’ve never tried it before. Now your friend gives you some, and you try it. “I like it,” you say. Your friend then asks, “How do you know?”
If your liking or disliking of sushi were an objective question subject to the criteria of proof, you would have an answer. Since it is not, all you can say is, “I just know.” Or, if you choose to take the process back a step and say, “because when I eat it, my taste buds send my brain information that is interpreted as pleasurable,” the question becomes “How do you know it is pleasurable,” and again you must say, “I just know.”
If the question comes down in the end to “I just know,” then there can be no evidence supporting that knowledge.
No, it actually IS the most common definition, and certainly the best; nothing ludicrous about that whatsoever. Most theologies would add a few more bits to it, but most would agree that what I said would be part of the definition of God: an all-pervasive consciousness, and the mind associated with the universe as a whole.
You are mistaken. But even if you were right, it is important to deal with the most sophisticated concept of God, not the most simplistic. Being able to dismiss the most simplistic and caricaturized concepts of God does not do what you want to do, namely refute religious/scientific compatibilism.
Because by the very nature of the universe as a whole, for the reasons I gave earlier, no evidence can exist for or against any statement made about it. One can do that for a part of the universe. For example, if I say, “The earth’s biosphere has a governing intelligence,” we can then branch into a discussion of Gaia theory and so on. But if I say, "The whole universe has a governing intelligence, then because it is impossible to observe the whole universe, the concept of evidence becomes irrelevant.
No, what you have described is evidence that someone is not processing information, not thinking coherently. It has nothing to do with consciousness. It is entirely about cognition, which is a different thing.
What I mean by “consciousness” is the presence of subjective awareness internal to a brain. One can conceive of processing information, integrating multiple lines of thought, and so on being done autonomically by a biological automaton without internal subjective awareness. What I mean by saying that consciousness isn’t falsifiable, is that one cannot falsify the contrary: precisely that idea that every person whose thinking we observe is a biological automaton without internal subjective awareness. There is no test that can be performed to prove either that they are, or that they are not.