The God Game, Part 2
This post continues thoughts started in The God Game, Part 1.
I used to subscribe to Skeptic magazine. I love science. I enjoyed reading the likes of Martin Gardner, the former Mathematical Games colunmist of Scientific American.
Martin was then replaced by Douglas Hofstadter who is even more brilliant. (His books are powerful play for mathematical/musical/linguistic minds, especially the original Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.
I also enjoyed James Randi, Isaac Asimov, and Michael Shermer.
Yet none of them believe in the Soul or in God. They can look at a little girl holding a doll, and feel nothing odd or irrational in pointing at the doll and saying, "That has obviously been designed by a creative mind" and then point at the girl and declare, "That is not the result of a design by a creative mind."
(Update: As the comments below point out, I am wrong about Michael Shermer and Martin Gardner. I made the kind of mistake one makes when applying to all contributors the beliefs held by the loudest voices. I apologize for the error. I should have used the names of the more popular radical defenders of evolution. Not that I discount evolution. Please keep in mind that the writing that follows speaks only to that domain of staunch rationalist skeptics who start from the position that they believe there is no God until there is scientific evidence to prove such existence.)
I finally had to end my subscription to Skeptic. Why? I simply got tired of the rather sloppy, hypocritical, unscientific attacks on believers in Soul or God.
Specifically, I got tired of rationalists who could attack the leap of faith (and anecdotal experiences) of many Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others, when these same rationalists failed to recognize their own leap of faith denying the existence of Soul or God.
I can understand if they say there is no scientific proof, and that they simply do not know. But they abdicate their right to claim to be scientific when they declare that there is no Soul or God.
The Micro-Scientific Method
Many authorities, particularly rationalists, insist that reality is best explained consistently through the Scientific Method of experimentation. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, so consistent results of experiments conducted by a variety of researchers offer better evidence for the truth of a proposition. Never mind that science is essentially a series of anecdotal experiences.
(Really, when was the last time you had direct, first-hand experience with anything "scientifically proven"? Almost all that you believe to be scientifically proven is really based on the authority of anecdotal stories. How often have you opened the newspaper only to discover that the latest studies show that all previous studies are wrong? How often have you believed the new anecdotal scientific story has proven that the previous anecdotal scientific story is wrong? Is your belief "scientific"?)
I call this the Macro-Scientific Method. It's the staple of our media diet of statistics and research and studies. It carves out a very particular, very narrow domain of experience and declares that to be truth. Don't get me wrong. The Macro-Scientific method goes far in the "hard sciences" in revealing material truths.
But there is also a Micro-Scientific Method, which carves out a far larger domain of experience and truth. This Method centers on one's own personal experience rather than on authoritative studies.
I know what thoughts I had 10 minutes ago. What those thoughts are can only be known by me. I cannot scientifically prove them to anyone. If I tell anyone, that's declared to be anecdotal. But they're still true.
The hubris of the rationalists at Skeptic magazine is that they can selectively negate all that is provable through the Micro-Scientific Method, through direct, personal knowing. To negate Soul and God and everything else outside the scientific domain, all that they have to do is start from the position that nothing is true except what is scientifically provable. It's a perfect gotcha.
Why not start from the position that everything is possible, and only negate what is scientifically proven not to be so?
Oops. Sorry. That would allow too much possibility.
The Two Traditions
We dwell in the western tradition that goes back to the Greeks. We center ourselves in the philosophical tradition that starts with Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and goes through Augustine, Erasmus, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Mill, Darwin, Marx, Freud, James, Wittgenstein, and Turing. (Nope. Won't link 'em. Go to The Philosophy Pages, if you want.)
The philosophical tradition is primarily one of interpreting reality with the mind.
The other tradition is the initiatory tradition. This is the tradition of enlightenment, conversion, direct knowing, revelation, learning from the feet of an inspired master, or directly from Spirit of God or something.
The initiatory tradition bypasses the mind and supplies knowing directly, through some kind of direct experience, often inexplicable, beyond language, and sometimes sending someone into such a state that rationalists want to lock them away. It's very unscientific because it's exceedingly personal and unprovable to others.
The initiatory tradition interprets truth outside the mind. Perhaps directly by this thing called Soul.
Of course many people combine both traditions into any number of combinations.
Prelude to the God Game
People, especially rationalists, look at this world and the so-called problem of evil (most often encapsulated in the statement, How can a God allow children to suffer?) and declare that there can be no God. There is no way to reconcile a loving God with the nature of this world.
Maybe not. But let's try an experiment.
Forget all that you know. Forget all that you believe regarding science and religion and philosophy. Detach yourself from your cherished anchor points. Try this thought experiment:
Suppose you were an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. Suppose you had the impulse to create. The question that begins The God Game is simple.
What would you create?
I used to subscribe to Skeptic magazine. I love science. I enjoyed reading the likes of Martin Gardner, the former Mathematical Games colunmist of Scientific American.
Martin was then replaced by Douglas Hofstadter who is even more brilliant. (His books are powerful play for mathematical/musical/linguistic minds, especially the original Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.
I also enjoyed James Randi, Isaac Asimov, and Michael Shermer.
Yet none of them believe in the Soul or in God. They can look at a little girl holding a doll, and feel nothing odd or irrational in pointing at the doll and saying, "That has obviously been designed by a creative mind" and then point at the girl and declare, "That is not the result of a design by a creative mind."
(Update: As the comments below point out, I am wrong about Michael Shermer and Martin Gardner. I made the kind of mistake one makes when applying to all contributors the beliefs held by the loudest voices. I apologize for the error. I should have used the names of the more popular radical defenders of evolution. Not that I discount evolution. Please keep in mind that the writing that follows speaks only to that domain of staunch rationalist skeptics who start from the position that they believe there is no God until there is scientific evidence to prove such existence.)
I finally had to end my subscription to Skeptic. Why? I simply got tired of the rather sloppy, hypocritical, unscientific attacks on believers in Soul or God.
Specifically, I got tired of rationalists who could attack the leap of faith (and anecdotal experiences) of many Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others, when these same rationalists failed to recognize their own leap of faith denying the existence of Soul or God.
I can understand if they say there is no scientific proof, and that they simply do not know. But they abdicate their right to claim to be scientific when they declare that there is no Soul or God.
The Micro-Scientific Method
Many authorities, particularly rationalists, insist that reality is best explained consistently through the Scientific Method of experimentation. Anecdotal evidence is always suspect, so consistent results of experiments conducted by a variety of researchers offer better evidence for the truth of a proposition. Never mind that science is essentially a series of anecdotal experiences.
(Really, when was the last time you had direct, first-hand experience with anything "scientifically proven"? Almost all that you believe to be scientifically proven is really based on the authority of anecdotal stories. How often have you opened the newspaper only to discover that the latest studies show that all previous studies are wrong? How often have you believed the new anecdotal scientific story has proven that the previous anecdotal scientific story is wrong? Is your belief "scientific"?)
I call this the Macro-Scientific Method. It's the staple of our media diet of statistics and research and studies. It carves out a very particular, very narrow domain of experience and declares that to be truth. Don't get me wrong. The Macro-Scientific method goes far in the "hard sciences" in revealing material truths.
But there is also a Micro-Scientific Method, which carves out a far larger domain of experience and truth. This Method centers on one's own personal experience rather than on authoritative studies.
I know what thoughts I had 10 minutes ago. What those thoughts are can only be known by me. I cannot scientifically prove them to anyone. If I tell anyone, that's declared to be anecdotal. But they're still true.
The hubris of the rationalists at Skeptic magazine is that they can selectively negate all that is provable through the Micro-Scientific Method, through direct, personal knowing. To negate Soul and God and everything else outside the scientific domain, all that they have to do is start from the position that nothing is true except what is scientifically provable. It's a perfect gotcha.
Why not start from the position that everything is possible, and only negate what is scientifically proven not to be so?
Oops. Sorry. That would allow too much possibility.
The Two Traditions
We dwell in the western tradition that goes back to the Greeks. We center ourselves in the philosophical tradition that starts with Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and goes through Augustine, Erasmus, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Mill, Darwin, Marx, Freud, James, Wittgenstein, and Turing. (Nope. Won't link 'em. Go to The Philosophy Pages, if you want.)
The philosophical tradition is primarily one of interpreting reality with the mind.
The other tradition is the initiatory tradition. This is the tradition of enlightenment, conversion, direct knowing, revelation, learning from the feet of an inspired master, or directly from Spirit of God or something.
The initiatory tradition bypasses the mind and supplies knowing directly, through some kind of direct experience, often inexplicable, beyond language, and sometimes sending someone into such a state that rationalists want to lock them away. It's very unscientific because it's exceedingly personal and unprovable to others.
The initiatory tradition interprets truth outside the mind. Perhaps directly by this thing called Soul.
Of course many people combine both traditions into any number of combinations.
Prelude to the God Game
People, especially rationalists, look at this world and the so-called problem of evil (most often encapsulated in the statement, How can a God allow children to suffer?) and declare that there can be no God. There is no way to reconcile a loving God with the nature of this world.
Maybe not. But let's try an experiment.
Forget all that you know. Forget all that you believe regarding science and religion and philosophy. Detach yourself from your cherished anchor points. Try this thought experiment:
Suppose you were an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. Suppose you had the impulse to create. The question that begins The God Game is simple.
What would you create?
Think about that. I'll give you my answer in The God Game, Part 3.
*** There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
posted by WitNit at
1:00 AM
13 Old Comments:
Another way of dividing the camp: Thinkers and Experiencers. The paradox is that Thinkers are experiencing the primal importance of thought, while Experiencers are experiencing the primal importance of experience.
Both are experiences; one group simply experiences, while the other rationalizes about the experience, holding to the shadow of such as its point of brilliance.
By the way, this Blog Rocks!
Thanks. So do your comments.
Mark,
While I commend your posts on the use of English, your discussion the relationship between science and religion is not as well thought out.
First, Michael Shermer is not an atheist; he is agnostic. Because I think you know the difference, I think it is fair to acuse you of being sloppy here. He made that very clear on his apperance on the PBS show A Question of God.
Second, your characterization of the way science is done is cartoonish. From your profile it seems you've led an intersting life but not one that includes much publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It is not so that anecdotal evidence is any more suspect than any other and it is not so that science is essentially a series of anecdotal experiences.
Also, your apparent attempt at mocking science (Why not start from the position that everything is possible, and only negate what is scientifically proven not to be so?) backfires in that you don't seem to recognize that what you accuse science of failing to do is in fact what it does all the time. Go to the library and pick up any significant journal of science; this is just what you will find over and over.
To me the question of God depends on how much one needs an answer. Since the notion of God is infinetly maleable one can see God everywhere or nowhere. If you want to see God in the Soul or in the flounder, more power too you. But since we can't know what God really is this really isn't logically required. This is the confirmation bias in action.
Rather than your question about what one would create if one were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, I suggest you try this one: What information, if it could be convincingly demonstrated, would convince you that there is no God? I assert there is no such evidence because everything can be explained if one choses to live within a theistic framework. If we can't draw a line between evidence supporting an idea (that is not a clear refutation) and evidence which really shows an idea to be false, then why shouldn't we be quite skeptical of this so-called "support".
I'll be writing more on the nature of science at Comrade Snowball.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
So, what's the name for someone who really doesn't care whether there is a god or not? I neither believe a god exists, nor do I believe a god doesn't exist. I just don't care. I don't think I'm agnostic, because, even if a god was proven to exist, I wouldn't worship that god anyway. I wouldn't worship any god even if a poytheistic pantheon was discovered to exist :-S
Oh, and I'd create the universes' tastiest pizza. Then I'd eat it.
Thanks for your generous comment, Comrade Snowball. You are right, I have been a bit sloppy. I'm glad to hear Shermer is agnostic, since that is the proper position for one to take who builds their spiritual beliefs on a scientific foundation. I must admit, however, that it was hard to divine that position from the way he edited the magazine.
As for the rest, I think you enlarge my argument unfairly. I am not talking to science generally. I am limiting my remarks to a subset of scientists, those particular rationalist skeptics who claim that science has proven there is no God, who fail to realize they take the same kind of leap of faith that the Soulists claim, who can look at a little girl holding a doll, and feel nothing odd or irrational in pointing at the doll and saying, "That has obviously been designed by a creative mind" and then point at the girl and declare, "That is not the result of a design by a creative mind."
(BTW, I would be interested in your take on the girl/doll statement.)
My question "Why not start from the position that everything is possible, and only negate what is scientifically proven not to be so?" is not a mockery of science but rather targets again that subset of rationalist skeptics.
I think you are correct in what you say in your final two paragraphs. The notion of God is infinitely malleable, and can be molded to explain anything and everything, which in the end explains nothing.
Regarding the God Game, you don't know yet where I am going. Stay tuned. It may turn out to be more interesting than you suspect. Furthermore, you might consider the point I make about the Macro and Micro-scientific methods.
The Macro plays a role in proving things to others. The Micro has a role to play in proving things only to oneself.
Ok, Tyler, I trust you. Being an agnostic doesn't mean you would worship any god, if one were proven to exist. In fact, there is no need to postulate that a god by definition must want to be worshipped.
And I think that any god worth his/her/its salt would be required to create the universe's tastiest pizza!
Oh, and one more thing, Comrade Snowball. I've never published in a peer-reviewed science journal, although I have published in a peer-reviewed journal before.
See the link to "Shakespeare's Knowledge of Law" in the My Published Writings section. This 30,000-word article is enough of a foundation on which I am willing to base my critical-thinking credibility. It has been cited by lawyers in several publications, including the University of Miami Law Review.
One of my good friends is USGS volcano seismologist Bernard Chouet, the world's expert in volcanic prediction. He was the subject of an entire Nova episode (Horizon in England). He has two PhDs from MIT in Astronautics and Aeronautics, and Earth Sciences, Seismology.
We have plenty of scientific conversations surrounding many of the topics I post to this forum.
I mention this so that you don't think I'm a complete novice to the domain.
Having read Mark's arranged quotes on this musical genius, I wonder ifa believers' best argument regarding the existence of God may be to simply whisper "Mozart" in the atheist's ear.... and walk away humming.
A likely fellow.
Shhh...Mozart...
I think you're mistaken about Martin Gardner as well.
From his The WHYS of a Philosophical Scrivener, it seems that he is a theist, motivated largely by his hope for immortality.
Fascinating, Gil. And thanks for the link. Martin seems to have carved out a very particular philosophy.
Post a Comment
<< Home