I normally don't quote myself but I wanted to have that above to explain why this subject came up. This is no substitute for reading a good treatment on the subject, but to understand why so many people get so mystified or flummoxed about people denying evolutionary biology on religious grounds, it's kind of necessary to explain why evolution is such a core part of modern biology.

Everyone is, I'm sure, aware that Charles Darwin is the name most attached to evolution. It's even called Darwinism or Darwinian theory. I won't belabor talking about Darwin there's plenty of good material on him. But what did he actually say. What follows is a condensation of a very subtle and elegant theory. I've stripped out everything I think is extraneous. But follow the logic and you will see why I call the theory subtle, beautiful and elegant.

Evolution in a nutshell:

1) Left to their own devices, meaning that absent predation or disease and with unlimited resources any population will tend to increase in a geometric fashion (e.g. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128...). As you can see numbers start to get really big really fast. If populations *actually* increased geometrically then we should not be surprised if the planet were populated by nothing but, say, elephants.

2) We don't live on a planet populated by nothing but elephants so there must be *some* check on the growth of populations. Those checks come in the form of predation, accident, disease and starvation.

3) Not every member of a population goes on to have offspring. This is because many die before they can manage to reproduce.

4) When sexual species reproduce the offspring is like but not identical to its parents.

5) If the parents have some trait that helps them survive a little better and they pass that trait on to their offspring, then they will survive a little better than those around them who may lack that trait.

6) Over time, these small, incremental changes in genes accumulate.

7) If a population becomes reproductively isolated and the environment is such that other adaptations may become advantageous they will tend to diverge from the founding population. If enough time passes then the two groups may not be able to interbreed if they come in contact later. They have become two different species.

8) Over very long periods of time, these accumulated changes are responsible for the diversity of species we see.

That is pretty much the theory in a nutshell.

I find it useful to invoke analogy so I'm going to ask you to come play in a toy world for a few minutes. In this world there are cats and there are mice. Let us call them average-cat and fast-cat. Let us say that, on average, for every five mice a cat goes after it gets two. That is average-cat's performance. Fast-cat, however, is a *tiny* bit faster than average-cat. She is able to catch three of five mice. Fast-cat and average-cat both get impregnated by the same Tom who also carries the gene that makes fast-cat a little bit faster than average-cat. But the gene is recessive. In order for average-cat to pass it on she needs a copy of the gene too but she doesn't have it. Her kittens will also be average. Let's say that the average litter size for these cats is four of which one kitten has a better than 50% chance of dying so the average number of kittens that live to reproduce is 3. Now, fast-cat, because she eats a little better than average-cat has five kittens. She also loses one of her kittens but that means she has four kittens instead of three. Let us say that of those four, they *all* inherit the gene for fastness. That means that, all other things being equal, the offspring of fast-cat will have more descendants than average-cat. Over time, genes for being a fast cat will become dominant in that population. This will now set the bar for the new 'average' cat.

Now, you might be wondering "okay, if this is true, Aj, then why don't cats move the speed of light". The reason is straightforward, after a certain point it just is no longer cost-effective to build a faster cat body. So cat speed is not being driven infinitely upwards. It's like the old joke about you and someone else running from a bear, the goal isn't to be faster than the bear, the goal is to be faster than the other person.

At the same time that the cats are spreading genes for being fast, the mice are in an evolutionary arms race with the cats. The mice don't want to be eaten, so any genes that help mice live a little bit longer so they can reproduce will, again, tend to become dominant in a species. If something changes for *either* mice or cats that effects how well the cats eat and how long the mice avoid being eaten, if it can be passed down it will be.

So, at some point, fast-cat winds up on an island where there are mice and birds. Average-cat stays on the mainland. Let's now introduce not just birds but coyotes. Coyotes go after cats. On the mainland it helps to be small so you can get up or in things quickly. Not *too* small but about the size of a house cat. On the island, however, there's nothing to predate on the cats. So they can start getting larger. At some point, a population goes across a river while it is dry and then it returns. Over time, the two cat populations diverge. One population becomes larger, the other population stays the same size. After a while, the larger cats begin to predate on the smaller cats because mice and birds just aren't cutting it for something the size of, say, a lynx.

That is evolutionary thinking in action. Does nature work this way? Yes. I built an overly simple toy world because the details are not important. It is just to give you an idea of what kind of explanatory power evolutionary theory has. Subtle, beautiful, elegant and powerful.

If we keep gaming out our toy world long enough to get a species that begins asking questions about the cats, at first glance it might seem incredible that something the size of a house cat gave rise to something the size of a mountain lion. It didn't all at once, but little tiny forcings due to conditions make it possible to grow a larger body.

Look around you. Look at your cats and your dog. Look at the plants in your garden. All around you are survival machines designed by genes.

Cheers
Aj

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

Aj you wrote:

and I'm just using this because it's the crux. And as a primatologist, I actually do agree with the above statement .... BUT then I'm agreeing to a principle statement that genes can be overcome and then we get back to the "gay gene" again. "you could help being gay if you really tried hard enough" thing. Honestly? yeah, I could. I could be semi-miserable in a marriage with someone and be monogamous and be damply unfulfilled but function ok. But again yes, as you said below, it's two different issues - the gene and the moral value of the behaviour.

I do recall a petition that was sent around the globe through the journal of primatology, back in... 95? 96? that yes, they all agreed humans had xenophobic biology for certain group reasons but that it was no fucking excuse for shitty behaviour (A mate of mine tried to leave vietnam and the horror she experienced was unfathomable, even in her experience with globe trotting quite a bit and being a black masculine looking lesbian). I forget who they sent the signed results to, several countries I believe. I doubt it made any impact.

but then, if I agree to it...it's no excuse for being gay.

and I do utterly agree with

I understand why people in the gay community want their to be a genetic basis for homosexuality but it does not buy us what many people think it does.

and your example is exactly why.

I suppose my beef is more in how the "message" gets twisted by people to suit their argument. I find almost all science reporting in newspapers rather upsetting for that reason.

and for that reason, I can empathise with people who follow spiritual teachings but get the lessons "bent" by the teachers and how fucked off they must feel about it. How the responsibility to the twisted message of assholes seem to lay at the feet of those that have nothing to do with what's being twisted - but still are under the same "label group". I'm wording poorly. excuse me if that's not clear.

probably why the non-hierarchical/philosophical teachings had more interest for me in study. not here or there though. just a random comment.

well, for me - I know you asked aj but I'm going to answer too - the magic thing that makes me feel all the beauty/wonder is that for me... there *is* no why. it just... is. It has it's own inherent value just for the same meaninglessness as the next thing. A cockroach is as different from a human as a cougar. for me there is no why. *I* get to invent the why, for me. it's up to me to give my own life purpose and meaning. That's a big fat responsibility.

sometimes, I'm not up to the task, lemme tell you. But most of the time, I am.

and in that, I do get a sense of "spirituality" in the sense of the word meaning "a sense of wonder and beauty and feeling of unity and smallness/humility all in one." for me spirit doesn't have to mean supernatural or other worldy. it's a concept word for me that I "get" the translation of. I don't mind it being applied.

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

I f*cked up that last sentance. I didn't find the book that flakey (meaning a touch) or too unreasonable (meaning for 1974. despite new advances each reprint has not been updated and I find that a bit suspect as some of the particle theory has moved on to better theory). But it does state in the epilogue "Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both" so I did find the read interesting and far less offensive than the WTFDWK movie

The Secret gets my tits also. The book and the movie. Oprah made it a success and it just was a waste of time.

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

Just my thinking here...
 

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

I can think of several examples of a secular religion (Ayn Randian Objectivism leaps to mind here as well as American Exceptionalism) but science is not a particularly good example of a secular religion.

No.

You are talking about medical marketing, not science. You may even be talking about the practice of medicine with health as a commodity, but you are still not talking about *science*. Science and technology are not the same things. What you are describing is pharmaceuticals developing a drug for illness A, determining that the drug will actually help people with symptom B even though it is not connected to illness A, and since people expressing symptom B greatly outnumber those with illness A, marketing to those with symptom B (see Viagra, for a canonical example of this).

However, you are still not talking about *science*, you are talking about *marketing*.

How are human beings a guinea pig in, for instance, searching for gravitons (the particle that is hypothesized to carry the force of gravity)?

Cheers
Aj

For the most part I agree with the first part. I think that science deals very well with how questions and a limited set of why questions. For example, science can deal with the question "why do we die" it cannot deal with the question "knowing that I will die, why should I live". Religion deals with a different set of why questions having to do with ultimate meaning. For better or worse, science is not tooled-up to handle ultimate meaning questions.

As far as your last part about certain events having had to happen in order for life to exist, I think that is an artifact of our perceiving our existence as somehow special. For example, in order for me to exist my parents had to have been born, had to live long enough to meet, have sex at least once, and then my mother had to live long enough to give birth to me. It would be tempting to look at that chain of events and conclude that since I am here (obviously) all those events came to pass and *therefore* there must be some great cosmic meaning or force that caused it to happen. Put another way, I could look at my parent's life as having happened so *that* I could come into existence.

I think we do something similar with the Universe. I know that a great deal is made about the perfect set of conditions that (allegedly) have to obtain in order for life to exist on this planet but some of that stuff is just an artifact of looking for specialness where it may not exist. For example, I've heard people say on numerous occasions that if the Earth were ten feet or ten miles in either direction then life wouldn't be possible. Except that is entirely wrong. Our orbit is not a circle, it is an elipsis so by definition we vary in our position relative to the Sun. It is certainly more variance than 10 miles (the distance between Earth at its closest point and at its farthest point varies by ~3 million miles!). The biozone (habitable zone) around Sol may be as close to the Sun as Venus orbit and possibly as far out as Mars' orbit. That gives a lot of variance.

Yes, some of the constants of the Universe appear very finely tuned and if they had slightly different values we wouldn't be here. But the fact that they have the values makes our existence possible, it does not mean that those values *had* to be where they are. Just that if we were going to be there, they had to be what they are.

Does that make sense?

Cheers
Aj

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

I just want to state that I am thoroughly enjoying the responses and how respectful everyone is being although this has the potential to be an incredibly touchy subject. Thank you all for presenting your points respectfully, and taking the time to process what we each have to say.

As you will. I regret that you choose not to expound on your interesting take on this matter. I think it would have been fascinating to get some insight into your take on humans as guinea pigs in physics or, for that matter, any of the historical sciences. Alas, I guess we'll never know.

Cheers
Aj

Actually it does not help based what you said after the definition. I'm with Aj in that I would love for you to clarify this more. I'm not sure talking about western medicine is a useful comparision.

I saw that movie, mistakenly believing that it was a feature-length treatment of Brian Greene's brilliant book "The Elegant Universe". Boy was I wrong!

To give you a taste of just how painful that movie was for me, I will borrow from Douglas Adams description of Vogon poetry.

"...During a recitation by their Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience died of internal hemmoraging, and the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of is own legs off."

It was horrible. It was painful. It was a complete bastardization of the physics.

It is ironic that my introduction into Quantum Mechanics was Fritjof Capra. I read that, then Taking the Quantum Leap, then the Dancing Wu-Li Masters. Then I happened to pick up a book on QM that was not written from a 'spiritual' point of view and fell in love. Here was a description of the science that made the more New Age rendition of that same material fade into ugliness by comparison. The fact that the universe just works this way and it plays out without any apparent interference from an supernatural entity is just awe inspiring to me.

I wrote a paper about the New Age misuse of QM a while back and made myself read and watch The Secret (if I'm going to criticize something, I should at least familiarize myself with the subject matter. I wish more people who are critical of science would do the same). One of the things I find most disturbing is the whole idea of "we create our own reality". I understand that this is supposed to be a 'kinder, gentler' world view but I find it callous. As callous as the kind of Ayn Rand Objectivism philosophy beloved of free market fundamentalists. Typically, when people are talking the 'we create our own reality' line, they are doing so from a relative position of privilege. I think that any of these philosophies should be viewed not from the point of view of someone in comfort but someone in great distress.

The example I always use (and anyone can find their own) is that of a young child whose mom and dad worked above the 100th floor of WTC 1 and WTC 2, who never came home the evening of 11 Sept. Now, according to the The Secret, anything that happens to us is something we attracted. So either this young child attracted the death of her parents or her parents attracted orphaning of their child. What could possibly be more callous than that? One can look anywhere on the planet where misery is a constant companion and one will be moved to ask "so what did that person, this three year old born into a war zone in Sudan" attract here? If we view things that way then there's really no need to feel compelled to do anything to alleviate their suffering. I mean, if you are suffering in a universe that will give you whatever you wish just for the asking and visualizing then your misery is your own. That sounds neither kinder nor gentler to me and yet it is an inescapable conclusion of the logic of The Secret.

Cheers
Aj

you might be really interested in a new BBC series put out called "watched over by machines of loving grace" that I loved. I agreed with a lot of the principle statements the writer of the series was making, but I didn't quite agree with the full conclusion at the end. But I really did empathise why he thought that way and it was and interesting take. here's the synopsis for the first episode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011k45f

if you go to the right in the box you'll see the link to the other episodes. Try googling the names of the episodes, you might be lucky to find a torrent for them.

As for Douglas Adams (one of my favorite authors) and his invention of vogon poetry... yes. I agree. what made it worse was the cartoon of the double slit experiment was a great explanation in lay terms. Like you, I thought it was going to be something about real QM. gosh, it was a horrific discovery as the realisation came through, wasn't it!

I feel very sorry for one of the scientists who later had to claim over and over that they twisted and took out of context everything he said to support their claims. Imagine the piss-take at work when people find out?

[/tangential aside for scientific pity]

I just went to Uncaged Monkeys in oxford with Prof Brian Cox, Ben Goldacher (whos blog on debunking shitty science journalism I strongly suggest for a read if you haven't read him already) and Simon Sing. It was really fun and I loved it but Prof Cox's collegues really took the piss out of him in front of the audience because he's a giganto sex symbol here. I was suprised no one threw their panties on stage. They kept picking the inappropriate questions from women in the audience sent in by text for the Q&A session like "what colour boxers is prof cox wearing" etc. The MC then said, after Cox very patiently declined the questions and exited stage left for the next section in the show, "Thank you audience. Later, Professor Cox will be pole dancing." Ok. I snorted at that one. But poor bastard.

I am just too much of a free thinking hippy to even try to engage my brain in this type of discussion. You are a very intelligent and well spoken person and I think that's cool. Me I'm thinking about retirement and how I can make that happen 17 years early. :-)

Several things leap to mind and I am going to have to watch this series. Hopefully the BBC will stream it.

This particularly caught me, "A series of films about how humans have been colonised by the machines they have built. Although we don't realise it, the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of the computers."

This reminded me of the following:

“In the game of life and evolution there are three players at the
table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am firmly on the side of
nature. But nature, I suspect, is on the side of the machines.”

(George Dyson -- Darwin Among the Machines)

Which then reminded me of this article, written 11 years ago by a very clever man named Bill Joy (he created Java) called "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us"

Cheers
Aj

Okie please........I have no idea what a 'free thinking hippy' looks like or thinks. No one is asking you to express yourself in Aj's or my terms. We are asking you for clarification of what you said.

As to retirement......it is ever on my mind.....I face the 62 or 65 question in 3 years, not 17 years. However there are many things ever on my mind. I multi-task every day.

Frankly I think you are very capable of multi-tasking. I wish you would. I want to understand what you are saying. I don't at this point.

I spent years in the western medicine clinical trial world as a community representative. I could only represent the community when I understood what they were thinking. I don't understand what you mean by guinea pig. If you really think all western medicine is treating human beings as G-pigs, then I want to understand why you think that. I want to know how much you know about how the FDA and how clinical trial mechanisms work. I want to know your knowledge base and how you arrived at the G-pig conclusion.

And then there are the questions about how you define science and what you mean by saying science makes people G pigs.

Help me understand.....or not and I will draw my conclusions based on less that useful information.

A paper I wrote on a related subject in 2 parts:
 

Ok I am finally back. As I said previously, I did some work on this back in the 90s during my college years. In 1997 I wrote a paper for a course on Ludvig Wittgenstein that speaks to the ideas brought up in this thread. I am going to copy it here in 2 parts because it is too long to fit in one post! lol


It was not too long ago that I was talking with someone about my belief in God, and she said to me, “I just can’t believe that God exists––it just doesn’t seem probable.” This remark is representative of a certain kind of attitude among those who are ‘educated’ and feel they are too smart to fall into superstitious beliefs such as belief in the Christian God. It is framed in such a way as to suggest that the belief in God is based on evidence, and inadequate evidence at that. Degrees of probability are based on the amount of and/or quality of evidence.

To understand how Christian faith might be related to evidence and degrees of probability, it will be helpful to look at a specific claim in the New Testament of the Bible. St. Paul writes:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3) For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4) so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Are the claims that Paul makes in Romans 8 believed on the basis of inadequate evidence? Are these claims subject to degrees of probability? Is every believer someone who simply has not examined the evidence carefully enough and attributes more credibility to it than is warranted? If that is so, then Paul is really saying, “There is now, probably, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. All things considered, it is highly likely, that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. It is Jesus who, all the relevant data indicates, died, yes, was almost unquestionably raised and who we have the supporting evidence to assert with a high degree of probability indeed intercedes for us.”

It seems inappropriate to interpret Paul in this way. It is, of course, not the way Christians interpret Paul’s Epistles. It does not make any sense to attach degrees of probability to the claims that Paul is making, but must that mean that there is no such thing as “giving reasons” for these claims? Certainly not. What it does mean is that evidence and degrees of probability cannot be reasons why someone holds religious beliefs because those kinds of reasons have no relevance in the context in which religious beliefs arise.

This brings us to the question of what would qualify as reasons in a religious context. But before this question can be answered, we must deal with the larger question of how contexts influence the relevance of reasons. Some concepts from the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein will be helpful in understanding how this kind of influence works.

In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein pointed out the fact that language seems to be connected with the way we live and there is a certain constancy in the use of language among speakers which is connected with the context in which it is used. Constancy in the use of language suggests that there are implicit rules governing how language can be used if it is to be meaningful, just as there are rules which govern how a game can be played. This observation is what led Wittgenstein to describe the language that is tied up with the various activities of our lives, “language games.”

A language game is an activity where words and actions are interwoven according to certain implicit rules. Each language game is imbedded in and tied up with what Wittgenstein called a “form of life.” A form of life is a set of conventional activities that seem to go together. For example, reporting the news, giving a lecture, greeting a friend, telling a joke, making a confession, performing scientific research, being interviewed for a job, etc., are all examples of forms of life. The language people use in connection with and as a part of these and other such activities is the language game. Language games are part of life insofar as they are inextricably linked with the way we live. Wittgenstein introduced the concepts of language games and forms of life to help make clear how language works in connection with our lives.

Wittgenstein also said that the meaning of our language is connected with the context in which it is used. For example, generally speaking, if it is said that performing a certain act is “good,” it could also be said that it is an act that “should” or “ought” to be done. These concepts are loosely connected in what might be called the domain of moral concepts or discourse. Simply because the meaning of these words, when used in certain circumstances, has a moral sense does not mean that all other uses are derivations or corruptions. One could say, “A good way to avoid a sunburn is to wear sunscreen.” This use of the word “good” is perfectly meaningful, but not from a moral perspective because the word is not being used in a moral way. It might be called an “instrumental” or “prudential” use of the word “good.” In contrast, in a sentence such as, “It is good to help a neighbor in distress,” the word “good” does function in a moral way. The context in which it is used determines whether “good” is meant in the moral sense or in some other way.

We ask “What does ‘I am frightened’ really mean, what am I referring to when I say it?” And of course we find no answer, or one that is inadequate.
The question is: “In what sort of context does it occur?”


Here Wittgenstein is directing us to look for the meaning of a word or phrase in the context in which it is used. This understanding of meaning leaves open the possibility that the same words and phrases can have very different meanings depending on the context. The meaning of all our words and phrases is inextricably linked with the context in which they are used. “It is good to help a neighbor in distress.” If someone says this while having a discussion about whether to stop and assist an elderly person who has fallen in the street, then non-prudential moral reasons will be required if further support is needed, such as, “It wouldn’t be right to just walk on by. What if that were one of our grandparents?” Furthermore, if the comment about helping a neighbor is made in the context of a discussion about how to deal with depression during the holidays, then non-moral prudential reasons are what is called for, such as, “Helping others with their problems is a useful way to forget your own.”

What counts as a good reason for believing an assertion depends upon the meaning of that assertion, and the meaning depends upon the context in which it is made. This is what Wittgenstein was talking about when he said:

All testing, all confirmation [i.e., reason-giving] and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all arguments: no, it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much the point of departure, as the element in which arguments have their life.

What Wittgenstein means here is that if one is looking for a context-free justification for, say, moral or religious actions and beliefs, such a search will be in vain. The meaning of a claim does not stand alone. It is connected with a ruled activity which is based on a certain constancy in language and practice (or as Wittgenstein put it, a system)––which is to say that it is rooted in the context of a form of life and the language game that goes with it. It is the context, with its implicit rules, which determines what will count as support for a claim.

The reason St. Paul gave for his claim, in Romans 8:1, that, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” is in the next verse: “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus had set you free from the law of sin and death.” Paul went further in his explanation in verses three and four. Here it can be seen that these assertions are part of a whole string of assertions that are related to each other logically and which Paul assumes his readers understand, such as the justice of God and its relation to human sin, what constitutes sin and its role in human nature, etc. This string of assertions which are logically related are what can be described as a religious system of reasoning, or a religious language game.

It may sound as if Paul’s claims in Romans 8 are circular since it is religious reasons which he gives in support of them. But religious claims which are supported by religious reasons are no more circular than are scientific claims which are grounded in scientific reasons. For example, it does not make sense to say, “Yes, there is a lot of scientific evidence to support the ‘Big Bang’ theory, but aside from that, why should I believe that the universe began with a big bang?”

Even though each reason appears to need support from yet another in Paul’s Epistle, that does not mean that this type of reason-giving is dubious or irrational or circular. For it would only be so if there were no implicit rules in the process of religious reason-giving which distinguish the relevant reasons from the irrelevant ones or make it possible for one reason to be better than another. If there were no such rules, one could make anything a reason for their beliefs. One could legitimately say, for example, “I believe Christ died for our sins because the moon is made of green cheese.” One reason could be just as good as the next––it would not matter. This is not the case for Paul. He would not accept just any reason as a good one for believing that Christ died for our sins.

Part 2
 

It can also be seen that religious reason-giving is not circular in the sense that circular arguments stand on reasons which are analytically contained in the very claim that these reasons are meant to support. But this is also not the case with Paul. His claim that “. . God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,” does not entail, i.e., is not part of the definition of “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

The tendency to assume that religious-reasoning is circular comes out of the mistaken notion that only non-religious reasons can legitimately support religious beliefs. This kind of mistake is often made with respect to moral reasoning as well. For example, someone who says, “I don’t get why people think they should do something just because it’s right” stands outside the moral language game and its corresponding forms of life and seeks a non-moral reason to justify moral actions and beliefs. What that person does not understand is that there is no grand, all encompassing, context-free system of reasoning that can be the ultimate ground of every context-dependent claim. Moral reasons are given for moral claims. Scientific reasons are offered as support for scientific claims. It is the same for religion. That is the way these kinds of discourse work. Religious reasons may not convince someone who stands outside the religious domain of discourse and the way of life that goes with it, but it does not stand to reason that there is, therefore, circularity or irrationality going on with respect to religious reasoning.

This is not to say that only religious reasons can support religious beliefs. Moral reasons can on occasion be used to support a religious assertion, e.g., “God does not take sides in human wars.” Moral considerations are relevant here and the implicit rules which make such considerations relevant are part of the religious context.

Systems of reasoning such as religion, morality and science do seem to over-lap in certain instances, and a great deal of confusion can arise around such an issue. One of the most obvious and concrete examples of this over-lap is the issue of Christianity and its relationship to historical knowledge.

Faith in a historical figure is at the heart of the Christian belief system. If a person does not have faith in this particular historical figure, then no matter what else that person believes, he or she is not a Christian. It is this characteristic of Christianity that points us to the question of what the role of historical knowledge is with respect to Christian faith. St. Paul wrote in Romans 8:34, “Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.” Once again, we are faced with the very same question with which we began: are religious claims such as those in Romans 8:34 to be believed on the basis of historical evidence, and if so, to what extent, and are they subject to degrees of probability? Historical knowledge seems to play a peculiar role in the Christian language game.

Wittgenstein was concerned enough with this issue to write:

Christianity is not based on a historical truth; rather, it offers us a (historical) narrative and says: now believe! But not, believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to a historical narrative, rather: believe, through thick and thin, which you can do only as the result of a life. Here you have a narrative, don’t take the same attitude to it as you take to other historical narratives! Make a quite different place in your life for it.

Faith does not follow from historical evidence in the sense that one amasses a certain amount of evidence and then, when the right amount is collected, the person is finally convinced. I think this is what Wittgenstein is trying to communicate here. He also says that historical plausibility is not the most important thing with respect to the New Testament:

God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies –– but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and therefore a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. (Roughly in the way a mediocre stage set can be better than a sophisticated one, painted trees better than real ones, –– because these might distract attention from what matters.)

He even goes so far as to say:

Queer as it sounds: The historical accounts in the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this: not, however, because it concerns ‘universal truths of reason’! Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof game) is irrelevant to belief. . . A believer’s relation to these narratives is neither the relation to historical truth (probability), nor yet that to a theory consisting of ‘truths of reason’.

I do not agree with Wittgenstein that, were the Gospels demonstrated to be false, belief would lose nothing. I think the narrative has to be historical to some extent––there must be some plausibility, at least in the sense that it is plausible to conclude that something happened. However, I do think it is interesting that he makes this point because it illustrates that there is a very different relationship to the historical in the believer’s language game than in other kinds of discourse.

I do agree with Wittgenstein that the believer’s relation to Biblical narratives is neither just a relation to a historical proof nor to purely theoretical considerations that can be logically deduced. Neither of those kinds of relations can lead someone to change their whole way of life, their world view. Historical knowledge, standing on its own, is a matter of indifference. It is the same with a theory. For, even if a person could be assured of having the most accurate historical account of the life of Jesus, to believe, as St. Paul said, that “There is . . now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” is a further step from seeing such an account as simply a story of a strange religious fanatic named Jesus who lived two-thousand years ago and was killed for his controversial beliefs. This further step is the meaning which the believer assigns to the historical account; it is a contribution on the part of the believer which is not a logical inference, for a person who relied exclusively on pure reason would not come to such a conclusion. That is why, as Wittgenstein said, a “mediocre [biblical] account suffices” and is even to be preferred.

The contribution on the part of the believer is Faith. Christian Faith is as much a way of life as it is a kind of belief. Its relation to historical figures and events is that of a sort of jumping off point from which one makes a qualitative leap. This jumping off point is not the most important part, but nevertheless it is an essential part insofar as a there must be a jumping off point if there is to be any kind of leap at all.

What then should one reply to the person who says, “I just can’t believe that God exists––it just doesn’t seem probable”? What I said was: “I agree with you completely. Of course it isn’t probable.” This reply was not a refutation of her argument; it was a rejection of the kind of reason she gave for not believing. It was a way of telling her that she was confused about the kind of basis the belief in God’s existence has; that she was using irrelevant criteria as a basis upon which to make a judgment about whether God exists. The criteria that are associated with the concept of “probability” are not relevant to a belief in God’s existence. “I believe that God exists” is not exactly a judgment made on the basis of criteria. It is more like a declaration that “I accept religious criteria as having a role in my life.” Clearing away this confusion about criteria and what kind of basis is an appropriate one for belief in God clears the way for the qualitative leap of Faith.

So there is my paper. I used Christianity and the Romans text to illustrate my points because it was easy. I don't strictly speaking consider myself a Christian. If it sounds like I am defending Christianity, that wasn't my goal. I was challenging religious fundamentalist's views of science and empirical proofs and their misuse of those concepts, as much as atheist's and agnostic's empirical arguments against religious beliefs. I would say some things differently (particularly in the first paragraph, oy) if I wrote this paper today, but it does lay out some of my basic views on these matters.

Wow did I kill this thread? :eek:

[QUOTE=Toughy;367171]Okie please........I have no idea what a 'free thinking hippy' looks like or thinks. No one is asking you to express yourself in Aj's or my terms. We are asking you for clarification of what you said.

As to retirement......it is ever on my mind.....I face the 62 or 65 question in 3 years, not 17 years. However there are many things ever on my mind. I multi-task every day.

Frankly I think you are very capable of multi-tasking. I wish you would. I want to understand what you are saying. I don't at this point.

I spent years in the western medicine clinical trial world as a community representative. I could only represent the community when I understood what they were thinking. I don't understand what you mean by guinea pig. If you really think all western medicine is treating human beings as G-pigs, then I want to understand why you think that. I want to know how much you know about how the FDA and how clinical trial mechanisms work. I want to know your knowledge base and how you arrived at the G-pig conclusion.

And then there are the questions about how you define science and what you mean by saying science makes people G pigs.

Help me understand.....or not and I will draw my conclusions based on less that useful information.[/QUOTE

Toughy! I can't get involved in this discussion without becoming very mad about the FDA and their antics. I will say that I do not think "ALL" western medicine is bad and leave it at that.

Peace!

I don't think you did.

Cheers
Aj

As you wish. But isn't it possible to have this discussion without really having to mention the FDA at all? Saying that science uses humans as guinea pigs doesn't just cover what goes on at the FDA. It covers cosmology, evolutionary biology, Newtonian Physics, astronomy--all of which are lumped in with whatever it is about the FDA that upsets you as 'science'. It's just an idea.

So, if you don't mind my asking. Should your statement that science uses humans as guinea pigs be understood to really be an attack on the FDA and not on, say, physics?

Cheers
Aj

I might be stepping into some do-do here, but I have a bit of a sensitivity to blanket statements about the guinea-pig slant and slam. Not all scientific drug studies are made up of unsuspecting people at the hands of FDA regulation or lack of it.

There are many drug trials that fall into experimental lines (with legal sanctioning) that people, and I think rather heroic people done with full disclosure that can and do bring us significant data that does save lives as chemo therapies are developed.

My brother died in 1990 due to pancreatic cancer. At that time, the chances of having even 5 years of remission for this type of cancer due to the chemo therapies and radiation therapy then used was dismal. He did after exhausting the therapies available and FDA approved at the time, sign on to experimental trials of drugs and knew that he was really only giving researchers (his own oncologist) a way to actually see if their hypotheses about the drug’s effectiveness was at least heading the right direction. Yes, there was a “last-ditch” hope going on for my brother as there is for most people that enter into these studies- he figured a month or two more with his child was worth it. And yes, he felt that if this helped medical science to gain on this deadly and swiftly moving form of cancer, why not do this- he was dying anyway at the age of 47.

Today, this chemo regimen has become the leading therapy for pancreatic cancers and it is the very one that the Cancer Centers of America uses that we see all those media commercials of. What really is something to lose one’s temper over is that this drug regimen is extremely costly and it isn’t available to all pancreatic patients in the US. And we all know why this is.

Yes, I can get angry with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, yet, I also see another side to things to this debate. I absolutely want the public to be protected against negligence in medicine and research, but I also want the minds that work on the sciences behind chemo therapies for all disease to be able to do this work. The fact is, every cut to the budgets of the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and the continued right-wing political barring of stem cell research in the US is what our real focus ought to be on. Not properly funding scientific research and allowing unconstitutional religious ideology to guide medical research is what really makes guinea-pig out of all of us.