jBlog

A commentary in response to sermons and other experiences at my congregation.

The dichotomy of gathering on a sabbath for refuge from the helter-skelter or secular world to find sanctuary in a holy or spiritual place during which some inner examination, dialog, or attention occurs (perhaps attention to one's faith is experienced as restorative) VERSUS actions that reflect beliefs but in fact connect to others in some extended community, notably beyond the congregation at least at times, and in service of helping and loving others.

False dichotomy. To the extent that we can gain insight about who we are, our patterns of perception, thought, feeling, and action (in particular in interactions with other people) we likely will act in (dare I say) more positive ways. Action without reflective awareness can often be rationalized as being done to help others, whether or not it effectively does, when in fact it is motivated and arises from unexamined psychological (again thought, emotion, action) patterns that have some self-directed goal. Hamlet comes to mind here. Introspection can also reflect unexamined psychological patterns that have some unexamined self-directed goal and also serve to prevent some meaningful and helpful actions for the greater good.

Liberal

Spiritual

Rational; what we have to offer is universal: loving community in action; yet to the extent that it is not rational in some particulars, it will lose some people.

Also to the extent that it is culturally tied to specific traditions it will both lose some people and appeal to some people.

Religious training develops frames for experiencing life such that things are interpreted and referenced by a cannon of religious text/information.

While religious text/information has value: wisdom, ancient history/mythology, wisdom in its fallibility too: human sacrifice, vengeful, punitive, etc; mistakes.

Need to be aware that that frame can be limiting; if only in that it puts off people using different frames; but too ontology (how we have knowledge, I mean) has advanced. Need to make use of full range of humanities, arts, & science.

A couple points he mentions that I want to pursue ...

1) Moral philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

2) Sam Harris

A questioner has several great quotes from Sam Harris and Dawkins recommends A Letter to a Christian Nation as well as the End of Faith.

Here's a link to the video: http://richarddawkins.net/video/dawkins_lynchburg_virginia.mov?coral-no-serve

Here is a relevant letter to Nature pulished this week:

Nature 433, 571 (10 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433571c

Would you accept advice from a believer in Santa?

Sir – I was horrified to read the recent Editorial "Where theology matters" (Nature 432, 657; 2004) in the world's foremost science journal. Not only did the Editorial appear to support the position that science and religion deal with different aspects of reality (which they do not: for example, either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't — clearly a scientific question), but it also implied that religion has some privileged position in ethical debates.

This view is reflected in many public discussions of moral issues, where the obligatory priest or rabbi is wheeled out to comment on some topic, in spite of their utter lack of any qualification other than a belief in a paranormal entity that created the Universe and all it contains. Would you be prepared to accept fundamental advice from someone who insisted that Father Christmas was real?

The suggestion that religion has an intrinsic and predestined role in any ethical debate is indefensible, as a simple read of the ethics promulgated by the Old Testament (for example) will make abundantly clear. In most parts of the world, and certainly in the Western world, we no longer stone adulterers to death, the sins of fathers are not paid for by their sons, and masturbation is not viewed as a mortal sin.

It is also time for us to discard other atavisms, including pandering to religion and pretending that this out-dated, dogmatic endeavour is preordained to lead or advise us on any issue, ethical or otherwise. Dogma is not ethics.

D. J. Hosken Centre for Ecology and Conservation, The University of Exeter in Cornwall, Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK

© 2005 Nature Publishing Group

AND here's the original editorial

Nature 432, 657 (09 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432657a

Where theology matters

The voices of religion are more prominent and influential than they have been for many decades. Researchers, religious and otherwise, need to come to terms with this, while noting that some dogma is not backed by all theologians.

Theologians and philosophers have been arguing about religion and science for centuries, so we won't presume to break any new ground here. Besides, nearly 800 years ago, Thomas Aquinas found a way to reconcile the two — as did Einstein, who wrote in 1930 that: "The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research." Why not just leave it at that? Why not simply accept Pope John Paul II's view that science and religion each "bring out different aspects of reality"?

The reason is that the two traditions regularly stray onto each other's territories and stir up trouble. Consider the political battles over the teaching of 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' in schools —an attempt by some religious people to foist their beliefs, masquerading as science, on others. Science bases its conclusions on empirical data, not on the authority of the Talmud, Bible or Koran. And even though some may find it distressing that science recognizes no god, forcing it to do so will only produce bad science.

Meanwhile science, allied with business, is encroaching on religion's turf by unleashing technologies that raise profound questions about human nature. Religious thinkers and secular ethicists are right to raise concerns, and scientists shouldn't just charge ahead without listening to them. Perhaps researchers will find a way to extract stem cells without destroying the early embryo, and today's hot bioethical dilemma will go away. But others will come along to replace it.

Jewish bioethicist and chairman of the US President's Council on Bioethics, Leon Kass, cuts to the heart of the problem: "Victory over mortality is the unstated but implicit goal of modern medical science." And immortality has long been the realm of religion.

Medical science aims to relieve suffering — an unquestionably noble goal. But religion thinks it wrong to emphasize this value over all others. Kass again: "In parallel with medical progress, a new moral sensibility has developed that serves precisely medicine's crusade against mortality: anything is permitted if it saves life, cures disease or prevents death." Most religions accept the inevitability of suffering and death, and seek to invest life with meaning, rather than simply extend it.

Religion and science also have different methods and standards. "Proponents of human embryo research have argued that all scientifically sound lines of research should be pursued simultaneously," writes Kevin FitzGerald, a Jesuit priest and molecular biologist at Georgetown University. "From a scientific perspective, this approach makes the most sense. In science, when there is uncertainty, one does all the research indicated to gain the desired knowledge and understanding," he adds. "But what is best for science is not always best for a society and its members."

FitzGerald would avoid experiments he finds ethically unacceptable. Others ask why society should be denied a medical advance just because some of its members find it morally troubling. This is a real concern if, as suggested on page 666, those morals are expressed with more conviction that some theologians would support. For example, not all Catholics believe that the Vatican's position on the status of embryos rules out embryonic stem-cell research.

Too often the debate is full of the rhetoric of televangelists and biotech lobbyists, who caricature each other as godless Frankensteins and ignorant Bible-thumpers. But looking back through testimony put before the President's Council on Bioethics, one is struck by the high-mindedness and sincerity of the discussion.

Secular scientists (probably the majority) should avoid underestimating the influence and rights of those who believe that only a god can give meaning to the world, human suffering and mortality.

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group

It seems (hmm, perhaps I should examine my assumptions) that religion often counsels us against some of our nature. We should give not take. We should think of others not ourselves. We should not be petty, or jealous, or vengeful.

I think there's obviously a great deal of wisdom in such exhortations, but it may be worth a little more consideration.

Selfishness as much as altruism must have some adaptive value for such traits (if they bear some relationship to reality and are not overly-reified abstract non-entities) have undoubtedly been selected during evolution. In the cold objective light of thinking about someone else, or better yet some animal (as if we weren't animals) we can readily grasp the value of grabbing up a limited supply of food rather than letting someone else have it. The upshot is you live the other dies. Now the altruism response is important too, perhaps sharing allows both to get through a tough time & having both around later increases the chance of each suriving. Anyway these are the kinds of analyses worth developing and returning to reconsider our morality as discussed in our places of worship and elsewhere. The law I think has a fairly good grip on these principles: of the need for balancing and weighing the needs of one individual versus others.

Here are some promising related links I just got by typing

morality religion science evolution prisoner game

in Google:

Caught Between Choices: Personal Gain vs. Public Good

At least in my browser, you have to scroll down a page to see anything in this link: Toward an evolutionary psychology of religiosity

Morality: Biologically Based?

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation

More on religion

This piece reflects a conversation I had with my brother.

He, like a woman who posted a message here on my site, made the argument that there are two aspects of reality (feel free to correct my characterization) one physical and one spiritual (metaphysical is another word that was used). This is in service (I believe, again feel free to comment) of making the point that science can make improving approximations of explaination (theories) of the physical, whereas the spiritual is not subject to such rational and empirical methods and instead is a matter of faith as communicated through other spiritual people, religious texts, and personal relationship with God.

The essence of religious experience for my brother, and I presume other Christians (please comment) is that accepting God's love and forgiveness, particularly that Jesus Christ was the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurected, will lead to salvation and that not accepting these points will lead to damnation. Further, that in accepting the above, a rich constructive fulfilling life can follow and cultivation of a personal relationship with God and or Jesus is highly valued and helps believers.

My brother makes some effort to appeal to the physical world for evidence of God and more specific religious beliefs. For example, he states that a number of people witnessed Jesus alive after he had died and been resurrected. He also states that the Bible, old and new testament, has a consistent message (abstracted in the previous paragraph). The "fact" that the Bible is so consistent and (in his view) uncontradictory is further evidence of supporting the "truth" of Christian religous belief.

Another important issue that my brother acknowledged was the fact that there were billions of religious believers in the world who seemed sincere and devout, but not Christian (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc). My brother's view was that his Christian faith was correct, and these other faiths were wrong (again, please comment). However, he acknowledged that any widely held faith was worthy of close examination, because wide acceptance by many people could be evidence of some "truth" in their faith.

One question returned to in this discussion with my brother is whether religion serves to answer questions about the physical world. Here are some related (in my mind) questions. Can the spiritual realm affect the physical world? If so, how is a distinction maintained between the two realms? Are miracles examples of the spiritual world (God) intervening in the physical world? Are there miracles which violate the latest accepted scientific understanding of what can happen in the physical world? If so, is it possible to document or reproduce any such miracle in a way that can be subjected to the scientific method? In death, does the spiritual part of someone continue to exist? If so, doesn't this really posit to distinct realms physical reality and spiritual reality?

My brother had much positive to say about science. For example, God meant for us to use our faculties, like reason for example. Many great scientists do/did believe in God.

As to whether it is religion or science that can address rational questions about reality, he conceded that early views of the universe, including those in the Bible ought not to be taken literally, and science has much to contribute about the how and what of reality. As to the question of why do we exist or more accurately why is there a universe (why does anything exist), he argues science does not and can not address these questions. Moreover, the inability of science to answer these questions is evidence of the existence of God.

My views about the spiritual (continued) There is a universe that seems to be fairly well, but not yet completely, explained by physical theories. As to the puzzle that it exists at all, I am aware of no answer supported by evidence or reason. It remains one of (the greatest) of life's mysteries. It is not adequately explained by religious ideas any more than scientific ones. I have heard scientific answers along these lines .... "why does the universe exist?" is not a meaningful question, anymore than "will you fall off the edge of the (flat) earth, when you come to its edge?"

Nor, do I mean to imply I am unaware of some theorizing about our universe being a bubble of multi-dimensional composition and is but one of many OR that our universe occupies one brane (whatever that is) and there is a "parallel" brain which when last in contact with ours was the origin of the big bang. All fascinating, but to both me and my brother, simply push back the question of existence to previous step.

To get to the heart of my presumptions. There is a reality (which exists independently of any particular sentient being's perception of it). We can know about it through observation and reason. This way of knowing has grown into the scientific method, which relies on testing theories (with the aim of disproving them) by relying on observable measurements using reproducible methods of reproducible phenomena. There are limits to this knowledge. One retreating limit is that of subjective experience. For example, how do you and I know that blue wavelength light gives each of us the same subjective experience of blueness (perhaps your subjective blue is my subjective red & how would you and I ever know?) However, with increasing technology, ability to demonstrate causal relationships between brain activity and subjective experience increases daily. Another limit is our location in a particular time & space. So its near impossible to test whether market economy is "better" than another approach using random assignment of subjects to two experimental planets on which each civilization will be started from scratch. Nor is it feasible to test evolutionary theory by watching life evolve on earth again from no life to 4 billion years of it. These are not reasonable experiments.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that stands up to scruting of the scientific method of a non-physical reality. In fact, if a phenomenon can be observed and reproduced then our physics theories must make account of it. Anything that we see, hear, feel, touch, emote, think, or believe are products of a reality pretty adequately explained by physics theory as it stands today. Our religious beliefs and feelings are substantiated in the activity of neurons in our brain, just as any other thoughts and feelings exist. My (not mine alone) ideas have some implications for popular spiritual concepts: no heaven, no hell, no white bearded old man deciding which way you go when you die, no entity which created us in its image and is all-knowing and all-powerful, no entity of yourself that continues to exist after you die; and many many more implications. I'd like to come back again to the issue of morality in that context in another piece of writing but I have already touched on it http://www.free-conversant.com/jblog/11.

I do think religious phenomena are worth our attention and understanding. Billions of people have religious beliefs, there's some degree of shared belief, these beliefs have some relationship to how people live their lives and associate with other people. These are all tremendously important to understand. Personally, I value my own religious experience (even if I may appear to define it in a way that many people might claim makes it not religious).

My minister this Sunday, as he has many Sundays over the past three years I've been attending the current church I go to, touched on some of his views of faith and spirituality and religion.

In fact I think many religious beliefs are compelling precisely because they touch on emotionally devastating topics like death and "evil" (or perhaps we could stop using that word, or take it to mean intentional harm absent some heavily reflected and vetted-by-others choice that any other alternative brings more harm). We do not (generally) want to stop existing. It would be satisfying (to say the least) if it were not true that we stop existing. Not just the loss of our own existence, perhaps even more painful is the loss of loved ones before we die. And heaven and hell? Wouldn't it be fulfilling some sense of justice or revenge to know that others (unlike us repenters) are going to a terrible place to suffer a lot for the hurt they caused (murder, theft, & other 10 commandent prohibitions). Isn't it scary to contemplate a world where maybe some people do go unpunished for hurthing others? Why should we follow such rules if not for the eternal consequences our soul would face?

Here I think it makes sense to turn to moralists, game theorists, evolutionary biologists, and evolutionary psychologists for some ideas. (Any links, or comments are welcome.)

Another religion related site. Well written, humorous, smart, even handed.