www.cetano.com

Even the greatest philosophers, modern as well as ancient, couldn’t agree on a definition of their field of learning. No set of words seem to adequately present or represent this subject which, by all accounts, must be the largest, though not necessarily the greatest, of them all. But no matter. As a race of incredibly inquisitive beings, right from the very first day that we are born, there exists within all of us a profound yearning to know.

Maybe it is as the evolutionists proclaim. Simply that the effort to know or to find out is none other than a manifestation of the basest of all desires. And this, they say, is the quest to survive. Do you suppose that I have just arrived at some truth? Hardly. The definition of an untruth is that even if a thousand indicators point to a singular conclusion, it only takes one instant of something to point the other way and the entire system falls over in a pathetic heap. Not my rules, but the tenets of science as its overbearing presence guards against any individual who dares to purport some new idea or theory.

Darwin was indeed an individual of immense capacity for genius and of course as with all people of such acumen and thinking, he was at least a generation ahead of his time. He painstakingly, systematically, methodically, scientifically, empirically, observed, absorbed and explained what he saw in nature until a central theme to all his work was born. He concluded that all life was connected. Over time, a lesser species led to a more sophisticated one by a series of mutations of its genetic code, preserving the most valuable assets while discarding the rest. He observed this purely from a macroscopic viewpoint and extrapolated to he microscopic. This propagation of the fittest was affectionately coined as the process of natural selection.

Despite some very large scientific holes in the argument for the theory of evolution, not least of all the hitherto unexplained gaps in the genealogy of many species, this does nothing to shake the confidence of today’s scientific world in the theory. But scientists are for the most part very clever people, and they too have consciences and rather like the idea of being able to sleep a little easier at night. So, they say that any doctrine based on the demonstration of scientific rigour that is observable, measurable and repeatable, stemming from things such as mathematical proofs or empirical evidence, is true. But guess what, this brilliant method for discovering truth has actually been more useful in keeping untruths out than facilitating the discovery of new ones.

Ask any scientist you like: “Do you think we are anywhere near to collectively knowing all there is?”, and you will get the same answer. “No.” Now ask: “How much do you think we do know, 1%, 10%, 50%..?” The question is silly. Of course it is. I don’t think any scientist worth his salt will put a percentage on it. In other words, the admission that we don’t know everything is made without hesitation but as to how much we know, there is no answer. But the scientist has a very cunning excuse out of this, saying that given time, all things may be known and all things may be explained using exactly the same scientific methods. A statement of faith if I ever heard one. In any case even this brilliant method for finding truth is flawed. Case in point is that, for more than two centuries, Newton’s laws of motion stood unchallenged until Einstein came along and said that the mass of an object can no longer be assumed to be constant under all circumstances because if it is made to accelerate near to the speed of light, mathematics as well as observable evidence suggest its mass will increase.

Given the above, did science abandon its methods? No. If therefore we can be fooled into thinking that something is true using our current methods, who is to say that any of the things we know are true. This is just cold, light-of-day logic. But surely, I hear you say, you can’t seriously suggest that we should abandon our scientific methods just because one or two theories have subsequently been proven to be false? Furthermore, what about the countless examples of scientific truth prised out of nature’s grasp because we stuck to these stringent methods.

Well, I led you straight to it. A rare example of leading a horse to water AND making it drink. You see, scientists hate this idea of the majority view. Consider how justice in the world is dispensed. Judges use the idea that the majority view is the correct view. That is, if all members of a jury cannot agree on whether a person is innocent or guilty of some crime, the majority verdict is then sought. But imagine if every quest for scientific truth was put to the test using the same criterion. For example suppose someone proposes that the moon is made of cheese. We randomly choose, say, a hundred adults, ask their opinion and if at least 80% say it’s true, based on whatever evidence is provided, we embrace the theory and place it among our annals of truth. How silly, I hear you say again. Yes, almost as silly as accepting the scientific criteria for discovering truth because the majority of scientists say it is the right way and firmly believe that it can be used to discover all truths.

Now, this brings me nicely to an individualistic method of arriving at truth. One which also depends on a majority view but only one person at a time is asked to accept or reject it. This is where the autonomy of the individual comes to the fore. If a person accepts some system of belief not based on scientific truth, we call it faith. The atheistic point of view regarding this is to say the least, blunt. The person who adopts faith as the central tenet of his or her life is surely one lacking in confidence, preferring to look for illusory means by which to improve or enrich their lives. But I must differ. I think that the only thing that separates a person of faith from the person with no faith is that the former is prepared to believe whereas the latter is prepared to disbelieve. The important thing here is not to attempt to say that either one or the other is the better way to live. Many atheists have converted and many faithful have turned away from their faith based on their personal convictions and experiences, born out of the autonomy afforded to every individual.

Even if we are taught one way or another during childhood years, our autonomy does not mature until we are free to accept or reject those teachings in later years. So, here now is the crunch. Those who have some sort of faith in God, believe also that there is a much greater, infinitely superior existence beyond the one being experienced here. For whatever reason, we are earthbound for a period of time and when this ends, the sum total of our actions, reactions and inactions is used to calculate for us a place in our spiritual destiny. This is undoubtedly an extraordinary statement of hope and comfort to all those that faithfully devote themselves to their creed. As for the atheists, they prefer to think that they cannot allow themselves to be fooled by the trappings of some religion that for the most part seeks to restrict even the joys that are possible. When we are free to choose, there is no criterion other than that which weighs heavily on our hearts.

The right to choose and the choices an individual makes are the real ingredients of faith and truth.

I am the author of a supernatural/fantasy novel called “Will of Dreams” which I hope the article above will incite sufficient interest within you to consider clicking on the link http://www.willofdreams.com leading you to the website dedicated to my book.

Share This

Bertrand Russell in his “Why I’m Not a Christian” essay, speeches and books states that the Christian Churches hinder rather than improve the social condition.

You can read his lecture delivered on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall at http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Russell’s biography and a list of his writings can be read at http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.html

Bertrand Russell’s life was not always a happy journey.

He was born at Trelleck on 18th May, 1872. His parents were Viscount Amberley and Katherine, daughter of 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley. At age three he was orphaned, got into trouble with the military during World War II because of his pacifism, was criticized for his views because he spent some time in the Soviet Union, was divorced more than once, and went from pillar to post lecturing in various universities.

His moral views were challenged by critics that resulted in legal action to stop him from lecturing at City College in New York.

Russell received prestigious rewards for his writings including being elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1908, and re-elected a fellow of Trinity College in 1944, the Sylvester medal of the Royal Society in 1934, the de Morgan medal of the London Mathematical Society in the same year, and the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950.

The British philosopher, logician, and mathematician died 2 February 2, 1970.

Some Reasons Russell Was Not a Christian

1. He did not believe that the existence of God was provable by “Unaided Reason, First Cause, Natural Law, Design, Moral Arguments, or Remedy Injustice Arguments.”

2. He was doubtful that Christ ever existed, said some of Christ’s philosophy is not original, he was not the greatest and wisest of all men, and his best philosophy is not followed by Christians because it is too difficult to live.

3. Christ didn’t come when he said he would. Early Christians assumed that Christ would come very soon and lived accordingly from day to day. He never came.

4. Christ taught there was hell and judgment which is too negative for man’s proper development.

5. I quote the great writer: You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

6. I quote again: Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.

7. My last quote: A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

My Amazingly Brilliant Responses to Russell’s Reasons for Not Being Christian

I chose a dead philosopher to argue with instead of a living philosopher. He can’t reply.

I’m an engineer, not a philosopher. I call myself the hack writer. No one will take me seriously here but I’m going to give you my two bits anyway.

The usual Christian response to a critic is to call him names and downgrade him by attacking his character. Let’s avoid that approach. I didn’t know the man but I’m sure that I would have no reason to dislike him. I think that his lecture in 1927 was not polished but he made his points. I’ll take them one by one:

1. No one can prove or disprove that God exists. Trying to prove that God exist by mental exercise is silly. God has to reveal himself. When he does, you must still decide if it was God or not.

2. It’s silly to say that Christ never lived. We generally accept historical records of stating the truth on such matters. There are plenty of accounts of Christ’s life by people who lived and traveled with him. Christ never said that all his thoughts were stated by him for the first time. Nobody else did either. Who was the wisest of all men is a value judgment. Russell never said who was the greatest or who even came close. He said that he had to go with Christ on some subjects. So, who was greater?

3. It’s true that the early Christians thought that Christ was coming very soon. This is very evident by Christ’s words and early Christian writings. But Christ said that only his Father knew when the second coming would occur. He said that not even the angels in heaven knew the answer to that question.

4. There are two sides to the argument that teachings about hell are detrimental to the advancement of mankind. Punishment and reward can change human behavior. If hell exists then it exists. I’ll take Christ’s word for it.

5. It’s true the church has fought science and social norms. That will not change. The church can be very intolerant. But the church has to progress in this areas as in all other areas. WE must not allow this to happen in our churches. I heard a Catholic priest in Japan say as he quoted from the New Testament that when we criticize other churches we stop “much good.” If you tell a Baptist that his church is wrong so he doesn’t go to church anymore, then the work he was doing in his church stops. I’ve visited different churches and I have heard Baptist blast the Catholics for playing bingo to raise money. I say that we should mind our own business.

6. Russell says that fear is the parent of cruelty. I don’t think that is always true. It’s one of those generalities that have little meaning. Greed and hate and envy are more aptly the parents of cruelty. If a crook mugs you on the street, he wants your money. If he rapes you, he envies your body. If he beats you to death with a club, he hates the sight of you. It’s true that a man might fight back because of fear or he might kill a rattlesnake because of fear, but he is more apt to run for his life.

7. I have no argument here. Russell prefers science to religion, or a fact-based philosophy. Today’s science will not be the science of the future. Scientific “truths” wither under new investigation. It is the nature of the beast. But science changes for the better, always pursuing the truth. It should be the same for religion. Past religious persecution needs to be analyzed and not repeated. The obviously false must not be retained because of tradition or the writings of the ancients. I like the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If we all obeyed that rule we would not have to worry about the future.

Do your children know the Golden Rule?

copyright

Share This

As a thought experiment, let us ask: What did God have to do to make the universe? In the broadest possible sense, the question of emergence is how the radically nonclassical world of quantum mechanics or quantum gravity gave rise to the world of classical physics, which in turn gave rise to complex biological systems, which in turn gave rise to conscious beings like us.

“Strong emergence” is the view that rejects both reductionism and dualism and claims to occupy a middle ground. It says that under the right physical conditions, new properties, entities or laws with novel causal powers come into existence.

Many on both the reductionism and dualism side doubt the very idea of such a middle ground, and they are even more suspicious of the idea that strong emergence could be of any real scientific value. Opponents of strong emergence claim that either it is supposed to be a brute fact that these new features come into existence or such emergence can be explained by science. These critics say that if the former is true, then strong emergence is just mystery-mongering and scientific defeatism.

But on the other hand, says the critic, if so-called strong emergence can be explained by science then it whatever “it” is is not anathema to reductionism. To explain is to reduce what else could scientific explanation be if not reduction? On the contrary, the kind of strong emergence that I have defended claims that strongly emergent phenomena can be explained by science, but the explanation in question is not a reductive one.

Thus, strong emergence has to provide nonreductive scientific explanations for emergent phenomema and not merely assert explanatory gaps as explanation. Defending such a view requires rejecting the Platonic idea of transcendent fundamental physical laws that govern all phenomena in favor of an explanation of natural processes that is more contextual and relational.

Current scientific attempts to work out this contextual and relational understanding of natural processes include some embodied and embedded accounts of mind in cognitive science and accounts of biological complexity specifically dynamics systems theory that argue for the equal importance of genes, environment and organism in biological development. Strong emergence will ultimately stand or fall on such scientific grounds.

But does strong emergence, if it can be proven, have any theological significance? If one defines strong emergence as being about brute features of reality forever beyond natural scientific explanation, then a theist can try and use such an explanatory gap to argue for the existence of God. For example, if consciousness is a feature of reality beyond scientific explanation, then perhaps the existence of God is the best explanation for its existence.

Notice that if defined in this way, intelligent design proponents are paradigmatic purveyors of strong emergence about living processes. However, if we define strong emergence as I have advocated for above, then there are no in-principle explanatory gaps that need to be filled in by supernatural causes. Strong emergence so defined is no friend to the “God of the gaps” strategy.

Strong emergence does not preclude theism. Furthermore, some process-oriented theologians, or theologians who view the universe as a divinely inspired creative process manifested in evolutionary terms, might find strong emergence lends comfort to their conception of the Godhead.

Michael Silberstein is an associate professor of philosophy at Elizabethtown College and an adjunct at the University of Maryland. This article was written for Science & Theology News.

Share This