Obama’s Middle East
It doesn’t surprise me at all to hear Obama’s unreserved support of Israel, delivered in his speech at the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby. I expected it in fact, maybe to demonstrate his disconnection from the background and descent that dogged him in his campaign. I suppose this will now intensify even more now that he has been chosen and he will direct his full attention to defeating the Republicans’ McCain. But in doing so, he will go even further to the right than McCain would even wish for.
It’s not a knee-jerk reaction, really, he didn’t need to even go to AIPAC now that he secured his position, but going there and reneging on his promises that he has to offer some explanations afterwards is something that we will probably get used to. Maybe this is due to his fervour and age. Or even a deeply rooted complex. But in whatever case, I really don’t hope for much in his Middle East policy if he does become the World’s president. I hope I am mistaken in this belief, but only time will tell. I still think Clinton would have probably made a better president, but it’s not me who’s casting the ballot.
this article was originally written on pointlesswasteoftime.com . Its a tongue-in-cheek list of 10 things Christians and Athiests can agree on. Apart from being rather funny its helpful to remember these points some times.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_god-fuse-10-things-christians-atheists-can-agree-on.html
I have to say that I am dazzled by the erudition of Steve and Ibn and others. I say that sincerely. But really, I can’t see religion dying out given that people of unimpeccable scientific knowledge are also adherents of religion. For an extreme example, see http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html for a respected scientist arguing for the world being created in six days!
And given that virtually all religions would say that God is formless, is not to be found within the universe by scientific investigations, is not made of atoms etc, then let’s face it, science isn’t going to disprove religion.
And we should credit religion, in particular Christianity, for the struggle for the abolition of slavery. Many drives to eliminate hunger, poverty and disease have been motivated by religion. By contrast, Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by religion. The French revolution was not religious. Genocides in Africa have not been religious.
Dare I say it, perhaps one should look for progress not through the death of religion but through, relatively speaking, a greater take-up of religions that honour life than religions that honour death.
Hi Steve,
Without arguing with any of the facts you raise in that sentence, I will claim that we have here a case of a respected scientist arguing that the world could have been created in six days in an unscientific way. He gives an irrefutable theorem, which in science is an unacceptable one. A scientific theorem has to have a theoretical refute, preferably with a description of an experiment that will either prove or refute it. It’s a precondition. He does so even while doing what he claimed to try to avoid – imposing non-literal interpretation on the text of the bible.
What we have here is a classic case of syncreticism, a very common occurrence in the bible. In a way, that goes back to strengthen the core point, which is that science acts as a religion. It does NOT, however, strengthen the case that religion does not contradict science.
I’ll just note that all of this is irrelevant to the current core discussion, of whether religion is going to become irrelevant. My take on that is that the answer is “of course not”, mainly due to the fact that science is a blind faith thing, and thus, for most people, indistinguishable from religion.
Shachar
Dear Shachar
Firstly, note that while I admire Steve, I am NOT Steve.
Secondly, I will agree with you that Schroeder is not arguing in a scientific way. But you write,
“He gives an irrefutable theorem, which in science is an unacceptable one. A scientific theorem has to have a theoretical refute,”
What theorem are you referring to? Schroeder relies on Einsteinian time dilation, which is testable and refutable, but which emerges from the tests with flying colours. The atomic clocks in the GPS Satellite system are adjusted for time dilation. Every time a satnav gets you from A to B you have just re-tested – and re-confirmed – the time dilation formulae from General Relativity. Those are the theorems that Schroeder invokes.
…all of which is a side issue to the main point I was making.
Brian
My most sincere apologies. Note to self – never reply directly from email.
The one where he says the world could have been created in six days. Yes, he bases his statements on certain principles of the theory of relativity, but merely quoting a valid theory in your own theory doesn’t make your theory valid.
The logic is flawed, the direction of derivation wrong (i.e. – he starts from the desired conclusion and work the arguments accordingly), and I have a suspicion that those part that are refutable can be easily refuted. In particular, his claim that the mass of the universe kept increasing for what we view today as several millions/billions of years does not, as far as I can tell, match current concepts of how the universe came into being.
Shachar
Hi Shachar
I certainly agree with you that “the direction of derivation is wrong (i.e. – he starts from the desired conclusion and work the arguments accordingly)”
Some guy in Sullivan County (wherever that is) took my article (which is quite flattering for me in itself) and stuck on top of it a cartoon that makes the same point with a nice touch of humour – see http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/science.htm
Loki,
Let me first put forward the disclaimer that I wholeheartedly disagree with militant atheism – the school of thought that is just so severely allergic to religion you’d think if you poured holy water on one of their adherents they’d actually evaporate like count Dracula.
Those people are what I called “Secular Dogmatists” earlier – the irony being that they fall into exactly the same dogma-trap as those hardcore religionists they are so against.
I respect religions in that they were the best attempts at social cohesion for big societies at the time, providing a framework and social-contract by which members would live by. I also realize that they were probably necessary for our species as it grew up. Tribal societies always on the brink of extinction rarely have time for honest self reflections on the nature of the universe – it was just easier to go with the flow of supernatural deities there fathers told them about and build on that. I can also respect this.
In today’s day and age, our collective eyes are more open to the world, we are more aware of how our universe works, we have a greater capacity and time for self reflections on ourselves, our world, and even our forefathers.
So it is in this spirit and against this backdrop that I have this discussion.
Well, I realize that there is more than meets the eye on this matter. Religion has many psychological and social aspects unto which it has become or is attractive to individuals and societies, etc. I agree that the fear of oblivion is not the be all and end all of the love affair between people and religion, however for the three Abrahamic faiths, I do believe that it does have significant impact. (Of course with other religions such as Hinduism, and old Greek Pagan ones, there was no such concept, so there must have been other dynamics at work).
A very valid question: See right below.
Again, very valid question. My short answer Loki is simply a reversal of that question. You ask, “what makes YOUR view more valid”, but I can also take that question and quiz a man of religion cant I? If you are going to ask me what makes my view of morality more valid vis-a-vis religion, then why cant I ask you what makes religion’s view of morality more valid relative to secularism? Its a two-way street.
Thats the short answer, but this question deserves a long one too – Ill come back to this point.
I fully agree with this – but no one is asking you to ignore your spiritual side Loki – the question is whether or not we can be spiritual without religion per se – as in, without the supernatural, and I believe the answer is yes. Now, this does not mean that we must all become robots and throw religion down the drain – since I am also quite certain that there are indeed aspects of religion that are in fact valid and spiritual as well. As with most things in life, there are overlaps within many concepts, especially in the social arena.
Thats exactly it Loki – general religious themes are in line with what our ‘hearts’ are telling us, and what humans have been saying for as long as we have existed – you said it. But how can this have possibly come about? In essence, ask yourself what came first: our hearts, or our religions?
I think we both know what the answer to that question is. Sure, there might have been a feedback effect in this dynamic, where for example even though religion came from our ‘hearts’ so to speak, once it was around, it tended to go back to shape and refine our ‘hearts’ even though thats where it came from originally. But still, that does not negate the central theme that it was from phenomenons very natural from which religion came forth. Phenomenons such as altruism, group kinship, empathy, and a general sense of fairness which humans evolved over time, and which have even been observed (to a limited extent) in some primate cultures.
I also want to touch on some important points in this discussion, but first let us separate and classify what we are talking about – there are a myriad number of sub-topics in this discussion:
1) The origins of Religion.
2) The origins of Morality: Natural or Supernatural?
3) The ‘stickiness’ of religion – why does it stay with us?
4) The Dogma circuit.
I have already addressed (1) and (2), but let me address (3): I believe that there are many psychological aspects for why even in today’s world, religion continues to be with us.
I think there are many factors, but if I had to list them, I would venture to say that pride and inertia is one of them.
A child growing up in a Muslim family, or Jewish family, or what have you, is for all intents and purposes going to take up and ‘inherit’ that religion, (or aspects of it), unless he explicitly removes himself from it when he grows up. But for someone who does not do so, it is safe to assume that if quizzed on his faith, he might say something like “I’m Jewish”.
Meaning of course, that he ‘identifies’ with the faith, which in turn means that he might try to observe its rituals, general teachings, and social events.
I would in turn hypothesize that the ‘stickiness’ of religion for an individual like this has more to do with its social rituals and his pride in them, rather than anything deeply spiritual. After all, humans are social creatures, and social cohesion and recognition within a group is very important. He might observe Yom Kippur as Judaism requires, he probably had a bar-Mitzvah as Judaism requires, but might also be a playboy going well against Judaic teachings.
But he’s still considered a Jew. Try to force him to convert, or come out swinging about how Judaism is just wrong wrong wrong, and he’ll probably go on the defensive, not so much because he is spiritual about Judaism, but because you are attacking his “religion”, which includes every social aspect of it which of course he follows. The stickiness to religion here is fueled by pride as well – attacking the religion which he follows is on some level attacking his judgment – you are in essence telling him that not only is he a doofus for following this primitive religion, but so were your fathers, their fathers, and their father’s fathers. You are attacking the intelligence of not only that person, but also on some level, questioning the cognitive abilities of his entire lineage! Not explicitly of course, but this is how it is interpreted.
This is one aspect of the stickiness factor – pride.
Other factors leading to stickiness also exist – this is probably the package deal phenomenon. For example, since religion overlaps with so many different social categories, such as ritual, social cohesion, family ties, culture, and even language, attacking religion is seen as an affront on all those sub-categories. And while this may not be intended, it is automatically assumed when one goes on the offensive. Hearts and minds will never be won in this manner, and if anything, it will solidify resistance.
So far I talked about stickiness of religion that already exists – but what about religion in general? Will it stay or go?
To answer that I think we have to look at the mechanisms that give rise to religion – and as I said before in previous posts, I think this is the “Dogma Circuit” in our heads. The human brains’ innate bias in attempting to find an explanation – any explanation – for natural phenomena or extrapolated theories. Usually such rationalizations will tend to reinforce an already existing and original emotional stance on a subject matter.
This dynamic – this quality of our brains doing just that, is never going to go away so long as we have our brains. However, what can change is our personal affinity towards reason and logic. Sure, our brain will always want to tease our explanations for things we dont understand, make up theories for things so that we feel comfortable about it, (afterlife, etc), but it is up to our us filter and understand our own selves in this regard.
Think of it as a constant battle between different parts of the brain. The temporal lobes of the brain will continually provide an emotional basis for believing certain things, whereas our frontal lobes will constantly have to say “Well, that doesnt really square with reality”.
And if we do not have all the answers, at least relegate it to something unknown and say:
“Well, I just dont know.”
We must never replace our ignorance, with our mysticism.
-Ibn