Science takes things apart to see how they work; religion puts things together to see what they mean.
SOURCE
Tags: Religion Society, Science & Medical
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 2:14 pm and is filed under Webmaster's Ramblings.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
February 24th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
What do you mean by “mean” in that context? Do you mean ‘explanation’ which is under the remit of science or ‘purpose’ in which case whose purpose? What does it otherwise mean to say “what does this tree mean’? (or star, or cancer tumor or….). Of course, it is valid to ask “what do you mean?” or “what does this poem mean?” but I don’t think that’s the remit of religion? Or do you mean, something like “what’s the meaning of life?” which – while i’m sympathetic to the view that the question betrays a category mistake – I’m happy to answer in terms of the meaning I give my life (very happily without religion).
February 24th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Hi yossarian, in terms of the article I link to; meaning in this context would be:
Who am I? Why am I here? How then shall I live?
February 24th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Ok and hi!, So I would answer that question with I’m (for these purposes) Yossarian, I’m 42 and live in …. Why I’m here I would explain in terms of my parents (!) and theirs back through evolution and natural selection. How should I live is not answered directly from the previous answers but in terms of my culture, my innate moral sense etc (which I would argue don’t need a super-natural (in its proper sense) explanation. I appreciate that some others would draw on religion for the last question at least, but I don’t think – in fact for me I know it’s not – needed:
We don’t need to draw on religion to explain the existence of a star, or a cancer tumor, so I don’t need it to explain my existence. The “how should I live” question flows from my existence and I am a moral creature for well understood reasons. Science can’t tell me if I should commit a robbery but it – or at least related rational thought – can explain why I think I shouldn’t.
Someone once described life as a thin layer of chemical scum on the surface of an insignificant rock. I love that explanation! and it makes me want to make the most of being a small part of that and help others make the best of their part as well!
February 24th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
And atheists get angry and frustrated because they don’t know how to put things back together again.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
You’ll like this post Webmaster: The Reason Rally 2012
February 25th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
@Tim, only after a trip to Ikea. Which to be fair does give an atheist like me a glimpse of Dante’s version of hell
February 25th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“Why I’m here I would explain in terms of my parents (!) and theirs back through evolution and natural selection.”
That doesn’t explain the why. You also end up with an ultimate cause which you cannot explain.
“How should I live is not answered directly from the previous answers but in terms of my culture, my innate moral sense etc (which I would argue don’t need a super-natural (in its proper sense) explanation. I appreciate that some others would draw on religion for the last question at least, but I don’t think – in fact for me I know it’s not – needed:”
You think. You cannot know.
“Science can’t tell me if I should commit a robbery but it – or at least related rational thought – can explain why I think I shouldn’t.”
How do you know your thought is rational? Where does the idea of rational thought originate? Your mind? But your ‘rational’ mind tells you that atheism is correct. Others, provably more intelligent people than you and I, tell us that the same ‘rational’ thought tells them that our Creator does exist.
“Someone once described life as a thin layer of chemical scum on the surface of an insignificant rock. I love that explanation! and it makes me want to make the most of being a small part of that and help others make the best of their part as well!”
You love that explanation? Why? A lot of people would consider that explanation and the love of it completely insane and irrational. Tell us how you know that they are wrong and you are right? Do you also believe that you are Napoleon Bonaparte? But if all that gives you some kind of purpose then knock yourself out. But if what you believe is true then your entire life and existence is meaningless and purposeless, you are nothing more than an accident.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Hi Tim!
I’m really not sure what other “why” question there is? Can you give me your answer to the question and I’ll see if that helps me formulate a response which answers your question.
As for ultimate causes, quantum mechanics shows us that the intuitive idea of causality breaks down so I’m not sure one is needed (see Stephen Hawking’s recent work for example). Why is there something rather than nothing? Perhaps ‘nothing’ is impossible. Even if a first cause is needed, I really don’t understand how “God did it” resolves the problem or adds any explanatory power (and which god?)
I was tempted to skip the dig at my intelligence (measure of which is dubious at best). However, I guess we could both rattle off names of people who we consider to be intelligent to back up our views and I’m not sure where that takes us. I’ll start with Dennett as well as Hawking (although happy to go back to Socrates if you want!)
Interestingly I don’t think my life is ‘purposless’. What do you consider gives your life meaning? God? Ok, but if an intelligent agent is needed to give life a meaning, I would posit that I get mine from friends, family, the society in which I live and indeed from me myself.
I hope that you don’t think that if you stopped believing in God, you would become a rapist and a murder. (If you do, please keep believing!) As a side point, because I think this life is all there is, I perhaps give it (and other people’s) even more value.
Right, enough. Nurse! – bring my horse! we advance on Moscow!
February 25th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
You don’t understand the ‘why’ question? Why not? It seemed perfectly clear to me and I cannot think why you found it so difficult to understand. And I’m not giving you my answer so that you can crib off of me. Why would I do that?
And I notice you have nothing to say about the dig at my intelligence though. Well thanks!
Scientifically, you cannot get something from nothing. That is an established fact. The view that perhaps ‘nothing’ is impossible must therefore imply an eternal Universe. As regards ultimate causes, Stephen Hawking might be a brilliant scientist (in some peoples opinions, and I would definitely not rate Dennett as worthy of consideration, but that’s just my opinion) but he is absolutely hopeless at philosophy and history, so I wouldn’t place all your eggs in that basket if I were you, although you are perfectly at liberty to ask me why you shouldn’t.
Anyway, where was I? Everything that begins to exist has a cause, yes? Why? Because it just does so stop arguing. The Universe is not eternal (I told you to stop arguing), it had a beginning therefore it began to exist. Therefore it had a cause. Unless you are a Buddhist or something in which case you’ll be telling me that the Universe doesn’t exist. Oh please do not be a Buddhist as I am not in the mood for that at the moment. Why? Because I just am so stop with the ‘why’ questions all the time.
You might not think your life is purposeless, but if Dawkins arguments are logically followed through then you are just a blob to him. Someone to buy his books and make him rich. Your only purpose to him, and others like you, is therefore to help make his bank account very healthy.
I don’t need an intelligent agent to give my life meaning, because I haven’t got any friends or anything that meet the criteria*. I am Billy-No-Mates. So by that argument I should be worshipping myself then if what you say is true, that an intelligent agent is needed to give my life meaning. But I don’t worship myself, do I? I hope I wouldn’t become a rapist or a murderer, firstly because women are dainty and fragile like butterflies and therefore need protecting, plus I cannot read body language so I wouldn’t know if they were interested in me or not in the first place. They have to actually tell me, otherwise I just walk away. Although that too causes its own problems, as some women get very offended when they think you just flicked them off but in reality haven’t a clue what just happened. And murdering people, well it’s just so messy. Besides, it’s far better punishment to make people wish they were dead rather than actually make them dead.
And are you sure you think this life is all there is? Are you sure you give your life and other people’s lives more value? All the time, and every day? Really and truly? Every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day? Why are other peoples lives so valuable?
If you plan to advance on Moscow I’d wait until September if I were you. And don’t forget to make sure that all your metal equipment is made of tin.
*Actually that was just a joke. I do have one or two.
February 26th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Another great source you’ve found there webmaster. Thank you! I would recommend to anyone who participates in this thread to read the full article. It’s very thought provoking. I don’t agree with Lord Sachs, but that does not make his writing any less interesting.
I think the quote itself is fraught with problems of interpretation. It all so much depends what each of those loaded words means to the reader…. I happen to think the sentence is just plain wrong, but I think I see what he’s getting at.
February 26th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Oh great, Yossarian’s brought in ++Simian Archbishop of Cantankerous, lol. Right that’s me gone then, I know when I am beaten.
February 26th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Don’t let me stop you Tim. My comment was addressed to our webmaster. I have no intention of intervening in your discussion.