So, since I wrote about Elder Nelson's talk the other day, and publicly admitted that I don't know any more than the crudest amount about the big bang theory, I decided that I should read a bit about it. While reading NASA's website, my interest was greatly piqued. For the first time in well over a decade, I felt like I might actually enjoy learning something other than math. Perhaps one day I will take some classes in physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, and maybe even other fields.
The first thing that struck me while reading this article on NASA's site (which is written for the layman) was the sheer lack of understanding Elder Nelson showed when he scoffed the theory in his talk two weeks ago. This of course does not surprise me in the slightest. When someone feels that their own beliefs may be threatened by another person's perspective (be it fact or merely opinion), one of the first reactions is simply to deny and reject what the other person has to say. I do find it surprising (and ironic) for a heart surgeon to so quickly denounce science, but considering that in his mind the concept of an explosion giving rise to (eventually) sentient life flies directly in the face of his belief that a supreme being created the whole universe with a purpose in mind.
The second thing that I thought of while reading this is the stark contrast in the religious approach versus the scientific approach. Scientists attempt to describe how things work by observing them, making hypotheses, constructing tests to evaluate the hypotheses, and then using the results of the tests to decide whether to accept or reject the hypotheses. That is, a scientist will look at stars that are traveling ever further away from us and ask "What does this mean? What can we understand about the universe--its origins, and its fate--based on this information?" A superstitious person will look at it and say "God did it." The former method clearly gives rise to a greater understanding of the universe while the latter is merely an attempt to hide one's head in the sand, having one's curiosity satiated by the simplistic (and illogical) conclusion of "god did it".
Going along the same lines as the previous point, one difference between religion and science is the way unknown questions are approached. When a religious person is faced with an inexplicable phenomenon, he will conclude "I don't know how it happened, but it most definitely has happened. Clearly, some agent must have caused it to happen. Not knowing what agent made this happen, I will imagine an agent and call it 'god'. And from now on, any inexplicable phenomenon I come across, I will attribute to god. (Or, in the case of polytheistic religions, perhaps I will create a new god to attribute it to.)" When a scientist comes across an inexplicable phenomenon, he says "Well, that's curious. Let's see if we can decide how this works." For example, in the NASA article, there is a brief discussion on "Dark Matter". It is something that scientists do not understand. But, unlike the religious, NASA is not satisfied by "Well, we don't understand it, so god did it." They gave it a name, but are still actively pursuing ways to understand what it is.
The rational mind will ask "How old is the Earth?" and then try to find clues upon the Earth in order to answer the question. Through all of the knowledge that we have, the estimate of somewhere around 4.5 billion years has been reached. The religious mind will say "The Bible says that it is a few thousand years old, so that is what I will believe." When presented with a contradicting viewpoint, the rational mind will say "Here is my evidence to prove my point. Show me your evidence to prove me wrong. If your evidence is more convincing, then I will yield and admit that you are right." However, the religious mind will say "I am right because God said so. Therefore, you must be wrong and your ideas are silly." This can be evidenced by the way Elder Nelson discussed the big bang theory in his talk. He didn't even bother to try to understand the theory before he mocked it. It is possible that he does understand the big bang theory and willfully chooses to misrepresent it by comparing it to an explosion in a printing press creating a dictionary. It is also possible that he simply has no clue what the big bang is. In the former case, he is maliciously misrepresenting the truth so as to make himself look good and in the latter he is speaking about something of which he has no real knowledge. In either case, he is being dishonest--in one case by deliberately lying and in the other by pretending to know what he really does not know.
I ask you, my reader, to consider which of these two methods of epistemology is preferable. Do you want to learn your knowledge by considering the available evidence and giving credence to the conclusion that is most logical based on the evidence? Or do you wish to accept dogma that is handed to you by superiors (religious or otherwise) and whenever confronted with contradicting ideas to simply deny or ignore the evidence presented to you?
I would much rather have a good understanding of the world around me than to hide my head in the sand whenever someone presents information that I don't like or agree with. But, to paraphrase Joshua, choose you this day which method you prefer.
The first thing that struck me while reading this article on NASA's site (which is written for the layman) was the sheer lack of understanding Elder Nelson showed when he scoffed the theory in his talk two weeks ago. This of course does not surprise me in the slightest. When someone feels that their own beliefs may be threatened by another person's perspective (be it fact or merely opinion), one of the first reactions is simply to deny and reject what the other person has to say. I do find it surprising (and ironic) for a heart surgeon to so quickly denounce science, but considering that in his mind the concept of an explosion giving rise to (eventually) sentient life flies directly in the face of his belief that a supreme being created the whole universe with a purpose in mind.
The second thing that I thought of while reading this is the stark contrast in the religious approach versus the scientific approach. Scientists attempt to describe how things work by observing them, making hypotheses, constructing tests to evaluate the hypotheses, and then using the results of the tests to decide whether to accept or reject the hypotheses. That is, a scientist will look at stars that are traveling ever further away from us and ask "What does this mean? What can we understand about the universe--its origins, and its fate--based on this information?" A superstitious person will look at it and say "God did it." The former method clearly gives rise to a greater understanding of the universe while the latter is merely an attempt to hide one's head in the sand, having one's curiosity satiated by the simplistic (and illogical) conclusion of "god did it".
Going along the same lines as the previous point, one difference between religion and science is the way unknown questions are approached. When a religious person is faced with an inexplicable phenomenon, he will conclude "I don't know how it happened, but it most definitely has happened. Clearly, some agent must have caused it to happen. Not knowing what agent made this happen, I will imagine an agent and call it 'god'. And from now on, any inexplicable phenomenon I come across, I will attribute to god. (Or, in the case of polytheistic religions, perhaps I will create a new god to attribute it to.)" When a scientist comes across an inexplicable phenomenon, he says "Well, that's curious. Let's see if we can decide how this works." For example, in the NASA article, there is a brief discussion on "Dark Matter". It is something that scientists do not understand. But, unlike the religious, NASA is not satisfied by "Well, we don't understand it, so god did it." They gave it a name, but are still actively pursuing ways to understand what it is.
The rational mind will ask "How old is the Earth?" and then try to find clues upon the Earth in order to answer the question. Through all of the knowledge that we have, the estimate of somewhere around 4.5 billion years has been reached. The religious mind will say "The Bible says that it is a few thousand years old, so that is what I will believe." When presented with a contradicting viewpoint, the rational mind will say "Here is my evidence to prove my point. Show me your evidence to prove me wrong. If your evidence is more convincing, then I will yield and admit that you are right." However, the religious mind will say "I am right because God said so. Therefore, you must be wrong and your ideas are silly." This can be evidenced by the way Elder Nelson discussed the big bang theory in his talk. He didn't even bother to try to understand the theory before he mocked it. It is possible that he does understand the big bang theory and willfully chooses to misrepresent it by comparing it to an explosion in a printing press creating a dictionary. It is also possible that he simply has no clue what the big bang is. In the former case, he is maliciously misrepresenting the truth so as to make himself look good and in the latter he is speaking about something of which he has no real knowledge. In either case, he is being dishonest--in one case by deliberately lying and in the other by pretending to know what he really does not know.
I ask you, my reader, to consider which of these two methods of epistemology is preferable. Do you want to learn your knowledge by considering the available evidence and giving credence to the conclusion that is most logical based on the evidence? Or do you wish to accept dogma that is handed to you by superiors (religious or otherwise) and whenever confronted with contradicting ideas to simply deny or ignore the evidence presented to you?
I would much rather have a good understanding of the world around me than to hide my head in the sand whenever someone presents information that I don't like or agree with. But, to paraphrase Joshua, choose you this day which method you prefer.
The rational mind will ask "How old is the Earth?"...
ReplyDeleteNo it won't. Why must a mind question anything to be "rational," especially something so abstract and unrelated the material realities of survival as the age of the earth? It IS a rational mind for which this question has some bearing on its sense of meaningfulness that will ask this question. Where does that meaningfulness come from? Is such questioning inherently rational? Why?
-----------
"...and then try to find clues upon the Earth in order to answer the question."
Sure, granted that the rational mind is asking the question in the first place.
"The religious mind will say 'The Bible says that it is a few thousand years old, so that is what I will believe.'
This decision may be able to be considered "rational" given that individual's material and social considerations. As an extreme example (perhaps not relevant to the modern circumstances you point to here but at least useful as an illustration of what I mean), was it more "rational" for a "scientist" of the middle ages to claim (truthfully) the roundness of the earth than to face execution? Why or why not? In that case, why does the value of abstract "objective" truth take precedence over the value of concrete subjective (i.e. I will physically live or die) truth? Again, this is an unwieldy example, but a more nuanced form of the same logic should apply to the many little philosophical dilemmas we face in the context of science "versus" religion (the exclusivity of the two which I hold to be fundamentally unnecessary, under a broad understanding of "religion") that you and I and everyone in Western culture face today.
Okay, that was a bit of a tangent...
On the other hand, the non-"religious" (in your sense of the word, as I see it) will most likely say, "Through all of the knowledge that we have, the estimate of somewhere around 4.5 billion years has been reached" ... "so that is what I'll believe."
Is there an implicitly a greater value attached to the "work" such a person would do to arrive at that conclusion than the "work" that your hypothetical "religious" person would do to arrive at the Bible conclusion? Why?
Sure, some people will really look into the matter, like you are doing with your reading, and some people will seek to learn more about the context of the Bible. If they are being honest, everyone should come to the same conclusions. Does that invalidate the value of the Bible?
I pretty much agree with the rest of the post, though of course I disagree with the way "religion" is categorized in our culture, as I've alluded to before.
Tell me, if a rational mind will not ask the question "how old is the earth?" then how has a rational answer, based on physical data, been given? Surely we did not happen upon it by chance. No, in fact, we arrived at such an answer by asking the question in the first place and then proceeding to look for evidence to decide what the answer is.
DeleteA rational answer, based on physical data, has been given because rational minds _have_ asked the question "how old is the earth?" But so have what you would call "irrational" minds. What I'm saying is that rationality is not a pre-condition for asking the question, nor does it guarantee the question will be asked. There's more involved here than simply "rationality."
DeleteI won't deny that, but it's not the issue being discussed. The matter is not whether a certain question will or will not be asked, nor by whom it may be asked. It is, once the question has been asked, how will one respond to the question? Will you go about seeking an answer for it or invent a supernatural explanation? I apologize if my verbology has been unclear or distracting to lead you to believe that my point did include what you seem have gathered it did.
DeleteFurthermore, I do not believe that I used the phrase "irrational mind" anywhere in the discussion. In fact, I'm not sure I used the word "irrational" at any point.
DeleteNo, you're right. You didn't use the word "irrational." You contrasted "irrational" and "religious," so I inferred that "religious" is not "rational," then it must be "irrational" (because there's no other option). Were you not in fact presenting them as mutually exclusive?
Delete"The matter [being discussed]... is, once the question has been asked, how will one respond to the question? Will you go about seeking an answer for it or invent a supernatural explanation?"
Oh, okay, I see where I was confused in that first line ("The rational mind *will ask* 'How old is the Earth?' *and then* try to find clues"--as opposed to something like, "The rational mind in response to the question 'How old is the Earth?' will try to find clues..."), fair enough.
I'd still pose my other questions, though. The point I'm getting at with all those little questions is the larger question, "Why are 'rationality' and 'religiosity' mutually exclusive?" You are careful to point out in your response that you "never used the word 'irrational' at any point." However, as stated above, you contrast "rational" and "religious" minds, and since there's no alternative to "rational" but "irrational," you may as well have used "irrational" in place of "religious." Or is there a point of overlap for your "rationality" and "religiousness?" If so, where is it?
If, under your construction as I understand it, religious inherently = irrational, and "rationality" is what's valued, then you have simply categorized religion as something "irrational" and therefore of no value. I can't help but think that "religion," whatever it is, should be more broadly categorized (always coming back to that)--certainly as something more than simply "irrational."
Anyway, I assume by your responses that you enjoy this back-and-forth at least as much as I do. If it's too tedious or obnoxious, just let me know and I'll stop.
I appreciate your questioning because it helps me to refine what I believe and also how I word it. I was very careful in writing this post to use the word "religious" to describe those who create stories or accept the stories of others about how things came to be the way they are. I was not careful to say that there are rational religious minds as well as irrational irreligious minds. I can say that the two are not entirely exclusive. An example is someone, perhaps a scientifically-minded Mormon or one of another modern faith, who says "god did it, but science explains how he did it". Certainly this is far more rational then "god did it, end of story". I still say that it is irrational to conclude that every act in the universe (or even just the big acts, like the creation of planets and life) had to have an agent who caused them to happen (and then proceed to call that agent "god"). It is perfectly logical that some things happen without anyone making them happen. When evaporated water collects in the sky and accumulates to the point of cloudburst, it does not necessarily need to be the case that someone caused it to rain. So, even though a person may believe that science explains how god goes about doing what he does, I still think its irrational to believe in god in the first place because there is no evidence to indicate that such a being exists. Certainly, you would think me irrational if I believed in Zeus. You cannot prove that Zeus does not exist anymore than I cannot prove that Elohim (or Yaweh or god or whatever you want to call him/her/it) does not exist. However, you would think me irrational for believing in Zeus because I have no evidence that I can produce to you that Zeus is real and the society we live in does not permit Zeus to be a god that people can get away with believing in and still being considered rational. Believing in something because everyone else does is not rational, neither is believing in an entity for which no evidence of its existence is to be had.
DeleteOf course, someone can also be irrational and irreligious. There could be (and probably are) atheists out there who believe something ridiculous, such as that Obama was born in Afghanistan. The two categories of "religious" and "rational" were not meant to be a dichotomy whereby one must fit in exactly one or the other.
I should have been more clear that the emphasis is on the thought process rather than on the person. Instead of saying "religious mind" or "rational mind", perhaps I should have said "religious method of obtaining truth" and "rational method...". That is, the same person might believe, as I described above, the religious story in one case and the rational story in the other. For example, I might think that god flooded the entire Earth with water a few thousand years ago but also believe that the Earth is billions of years old, just as geologists have said that it likely is. The difference is, where my information came from in either case. In the former case, it came from a compilation of fables written roughly 300 BC or so by someone who likely didn't understand any of the science we have today--especially not what impact flooding the whole Earth would have. Whereas the latter was an educated answer reached after many years of science and research, carefully measured and cross-examined by other experts in the area, and withstanding the test of time and newer scientific understanding that supports the answer given. Which one is rational to accept and which is irrational? It would be no more rational to accept the story of Noah's ark than it would to accept Aesop's fables as fact rather than just as fiction with a moral. If there were geological evidence that the Earth had been covered in water 4300 years ago, and other information from other areas of science to support the story, along with an explanation of how that much water got here and where it all is now, then it would be logical to believe in the story of the great flood. Without that evidence, it is irrational.
DeleteBut the core of the article, the main thrust is, when you are faced with a question about the natural world, will you react by 1. Inventing a story to explain how it happened, possibly as the result of the action of some supernatural being, but lacking any real evidence to support your claim, 2. Looking for evidence in the natural world to explain the phenomenon, or 3. Believing the words of someone else who has done one of these two things?