Theology And Science

[kowalskil]

Those interested in serious debates about God are invited to read my set of 16 essays, entitled: 

 

"Reflections on Theology and Science." The set exists in three forms:

 

1) A webpage:< http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology_science.htm >

 

2) A free pdf file, downloadable from:

 

< http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology_science.pdf  >

 

and

 

3) A very inexpensive eBook (only $0.99), available at amazon.com :

 

<  http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Theology-Science-Ludwik-Kowalski-ebook/dp/B00QMG75ZY >

 

Please share these resources with those who might be interested, especially students, if appropriate. Comments will be appreciated.

 

Thank you in advance

 

Ludwik Kowalski

[CraigD]

You’re essays are collectively long and contain many ideas, Ludkik, so I’ll comment just on the first a statement I encountered with which I take issue, reading them in the order they appear on your “Reflections on Theology and Science” page. I wasn’t able to follow your link for ”Item 1) Collected statements about conflicts”, so followed the one for “Item 2) American Atheist”, to

“Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists”

Is the spiritual world real? It is in the same way that everything which exists is real. It cannot be touched, just as a scant or a magnetic field cannot be touched; it cannot be seen, just as the sound of a trumpet is invisible. Yet it can be perceived and measured, checked and defined by its own tools of perception and measurement."

I think this assertion, that the spiritual world is real in the same way as everything which exists is real, is false.

 

A key distinction between the perception of the spiritual world and of the physical one is that most people agree in their perception of the physical, but not of the spiritual.

 

If, during a give duration, a trumpet is sounded, or not, near two people with normal hearing, then those people, who are prevented from communicating or otherwise being aware of one another, are asked “did you hear a sound”, their answers will almost always agree.

 

Replace the “hearing the sound of a trumpet by people with normal hearing” in the above experiment with, “being moved by the Holy Spirit by people who are able to feel the Holy Spirit”. The two people’s answers will agree no more than expected by chance.

 

If the people are allowed to communicate, their answers will agree much more.

 

From this, I conclude that the spiritual world originates in people’s imagination, which I think is a very difference way of being real than the physical world, which exists independently of the mental activity required to perceive it.

[kowalskil]

Thank you for your comment, CraigD

 

"You’re essays are collectively long and contain many ideas, Ludkik, so I’ll comment just on the first a statement I encountered with which I take issue, reading them in the order they appear on your "Reflections on Theology and Science” page. I wasn’t able to follow your link for ”Item 1) Collected statements about conflicts”, so followed the one for “Item 2) American Atheist”, to

“Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists”

Is the spiritual world real? It is in the same way that everything which exists is real. It cannot be touched, just as a scant or a magnetic field cannot be touched; it cannot be seen, just as the sound of a trumpet is invisible. Yet it can be perceived and measured, checked and defined by its own tools of perception and measurement."

I think this assertion, that the spiritual world is real in the same way as everything which exists is real, is false.

 

A key distinction between the perception of the spiritual world and of the physical one is that most people agree in their perception of the physical, but not of the spiritual.

 

If, during a give duration, a trumpet is sounded, or not, near two people with normal hearing, then those people, who are prevented from communicating or otherwise being aware of one another, are asked “did you hear a sound”, their answers will almost always agree.

 

Replace the “hearing the sound of a trumpet by people with normal hearing” in the above experiment with, “being moved by the Holy Spirit by people who are able to feel the Holy Spirit”. The two people’s answers will agree no more than expected by chance.

 

If the people are allowed to communicate, their answers will agree much more.

 

From this, I conclude that the spiritual world originates in people’s imagination, which I think is a very difference way of being real than the physical world, which exists independently of the mental activity required to perceive it."

 

The main point of this assertion, found in ( 8), is that invisible entities can be real. The phrase "to be real" has several meanings. That is why not everyone would agree that the  assertion is "false." A concept that originates in my imagination is real to me, just like my brain (a material entity) is real.

 

Ludwik Kowalski

[kowalskil]

P.S.

 

KraigD also wrote: "Replace the “hearing the sound of a trumpet by people with normal hearing” in the above experiment with, “being moved by the Holy Spirit by people who are able to feel the Holy Spirit”. The two people’s answers will agree no more than expected by chance."

 

Please name a question (possible in this situation), and a two sets of possible answers.

 

Ludwik

[CraigD]

Please name a question (possible in this situation), and a two sets of possible answers.

The two self-reporting experiments from my previous post, described more regularly and explicitly:

 

During a 5 minutes period, a trumpet is sounded, or not, near two people with normal hearing. At the end of that period, those people, who are prevented from communicating or otherwise being aware of one another, are asked “in the past 5 minutes, did you hear a trumpet sound?”

 

After a 5 minute period, two people near each other, with the self-reported ability to be feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, and for periods greater than 5 minutes, not feel it, who are prevented from communicating or otherwise being aware of one another, are asked “in the past 5 minutes did you feel the Holy Spirit?”

 

Acceptable answers for both experiments are “no” or “yes”. Each experiment is repeated 30 times.

[kowalskil]

The two self-reporting experiments from my previous post, described more regularly and explicitly:

 

During a 5 minutes period, a trumpet is sounded, or not, near two people with normal hearing. At the end of that period, those people, who are prevented from communicating or otherwise being aware of one another, are asked “in the past 5 minutes, did you hear a trumpet sound?”

 

After a 5 minute period, two people near each other, with the self-reported ability to be feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, and for periods greater than 5 minutes, not feel it, who are prevented from communicating or otherwise being aware of one another, are asked “in the past 5 minutes did you feel the Holy Spirit?”

 

Acceptable answers for both experiments are “no” or “yes”. Each experiment is repeated 30 times.

Yes indeed. I also have no doubt that answers in such tests would be "yes" and "no."

 

Ludwik

 

Ludwik

 

described difference would be experimentally confirmed.

 

Ludwik

[AnssiH]

Ludwik, you seem to be someone who likes to think about things. It would be interesting to hear what do you think about the OP at;

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/27904-the-problem-with-religion-debates/

 

It's quite closely related to a lot of the comments you make.

 

As of pantheism, I am really failing to see how that is different from atheism. Since "God is Nature" is meant in the sense that "God/Nature" is not assigned with any conscious properties at all, it just means "God" refers to "primary mover" or in other words "everything out there". So, it's literally a word replacement from "nature" to "God"? Can you try and describe the critical difference?

 

How I view the difference between theism and atheism is that the former is by definition anthropomorphic view on nature (and I suppose there always is anthropomorphic creator). That's why I said in the earlier thread that Pantheism is atheistic ideology with theistic terminology.

 

Another issue you touch in your writings is the idea of religion giving people morality. I think religion gives people a terrible emotional philosophy on morality, and I'm amazed how uncritical people are about the problems that it creates. And I'm amazed how people say "science cannot give you moral values". I disagree completely.

 

The problem as I mention in the thread above is that most people who say and think they are scientifically thinking people, are not. If you had a purely scientific attitude, you would never think you know anything about reality for a fact. You would just operate under your best knowledge, without emotionally charged motivations. That doesn't mean you wouldn't take people's emotions into account, it just means you don't believe something is so because it sounds true to you.

 

The critical difference with religious philosophies is that they assume they can just choose what to believe, and that's that. Like you alluded, they start with "the truth" (the writings), and then try to figure out how is it that they are true. ("[theories] are accepted or rejected on the basis of intuition, and on the basis of logical consistency with holy books.")

 

To do so seems completely insane from a scientific paradigm, and completely rational from a religious paradigm; it is important to understand the mindset of both parties. It is important to understand that there really are people who don't see anything wrong with simply choosing what is truth, and then using the language that we know it is true, because we chose so.

 

Then there are two important issues with morality. One is that, despite the pretense, the religious side does not have anything objective to start with; the holy writings are to be interpreted through the moral framework of each person and society, and the results are as subjective as any other method. It is only their terminology that refers to it as objective moral framework, which it never will be at all.

 

Secondly, if you base your moral choices on the leading scientific results as best you can, then you are by definition basing your choices on the best knowledge of the day. Whenever a religious decision is any different, it means its a choice that goes against our best knowledge, for emotional purposes ("it just intuitively seems right" types of reasons).

 

Both parties may well be wrong in their choices, but the expectation is that the party that continuously updates its choices according to its best knowledge, is going to be making better choices more of the time.

 

Take the issue of abortion. If according to our best knowledge the fetus is not a conscious being, it doesn't have a soul that will suffer after the abortion, and so on and so forth, then we are reducing suffering in the world by allowing abortion.

 

The religious argument is that the above may be wrong, maybe there is a soul that will suffer more than the suffering we create on earth. Sure, but that's emotional reason to bet against our best knowledge, is it not?

 

I have yet to come up with a single example where religion would have improved a person's moral framework. I think we simply get our morality from our ability to empathize with other people, which allowed us to live in social groups, which proved to be a good survival mechanism. The better you can empathize with other people, the better you can predict their behavior, and the more successful survival machine you will be. I often hear people saying "but that's not enough to explain it", but they never explain why not.

[Eclogite]

Ludwik doesn't seem especially interested in holding a discussion, so I shall direct my remarks to AnssiH, who does seem interested.

 

While there is much in your post I see as accurate I take issue with your downplaying the importance of religion for morality. I shall attempt to summarise my argument briefly. I shall readily expand on any point that seems unclear, or unsupported.

 

1. Our morals arise out of the expression of our instincts, filtered through family and society intrepretations.

2. Most people do not derive their morals by logical construction from a blank sheet.

3. Religion provides a set of moral values that can be followed, or at least acknowledged, by the majority of a culture.

4. That common ground creates a unity and thus helps promote the wellbeing of that culture.

[AnssiH]

Ludwik doesn't seem especially interested in holding a discussion, so I shall direct my remarks to AnssiH, who does seem interested.

Yup

 

While there is much in your post I see as accurate I take issue with your downplaying the importance of religion for morality. I shall attempt to summarise my argument briefly. I shall readily expand on any point that seems unclear, or unsupported.

 

1. Our morals arise out of the expression of our instincts, filtered through family and society intrepretations.

2. Most people do not derive their morals by logical construction from a blank sheet.

3. Religion provides a set of moral values that can be followed, or at least acknowledged, by the majority of a culture.

4. That common ground creates a unity and thus helps promote the wellbeing of that culture.

The thing is that even when a person "takes their moral values from the bible" as they would say, what they actually do is they just take the ones they already agree with, and ignore the rest. Like the ones about stoning the children, offering your daughters to be raped by angry mob to protect strangers or only taking slaves from other countries.

 

To say these are not moral teachings is to perform a subjective interpretation of the texts (i.e. "ignoring the rest"). So the simple fact is, whether you get your moral values from a holy book, or from your parents or your neighbor or from your common sense, they are actually just a reflection of what kind of world you want to live in. The chances are that people within the same culture, whether atheistic or theistic, more or less share similar idea of the world.

 

This desire to reach for certain kind of world is why there are so many people out there who actually support some theistic view while having a firmly atheistic ideology themselves. They simply believe that it's good way to control the massess; While they themselves don't feel the need to believe in God to be "good" (or what they believe to be good) they nevertheless don't believe most people are intelligent enough to be trusted with their own ideas. Your comments allude to exactly that kind of idea.

 

Unfortunately ignorance is far more dangerous than logical thinking. For example, in Russia the recent anti-gay sentiments arise from simple ignorance, where "gay" is used interchangeably with "pedophile". There are people who beat up gay people, believing they are fighting pedophiles and thus protecting innocent people, and acting morally. Yeah, it really is that silly.

 

It seems there's always one underlying common thread in everyone's morals; everyone try to aim for reducing suffering in the world. Our ability to empathize means we aim to reduce collective suffering in the world. If you study the most heinous wars in human history, they have been fought under the belief that they would somehow lead to less sufferring overall.

 

It actually would be possible to reach consensus on things when people recognize their beliefs and treat them as such. The better you research and actually understand the mechanisms with which things work, the better you can make choices that actually lead to less collective suffering.

 

Occasionally I also hear this argument about how many people have been somehow "inspired" by their faith into helping other people. I would actually give some credit to those people themselves. Again, the reason they help other people is because that reflects the kind of world they would want to live in. I doubt those people hate helping people and just do it because they believe God wants them to do it. If they became atheistic, I doubt they'd suddenly lose their willingness to help other people.

 

The terrible aspect of having theistic morals is that, under certain conditions people run the risk of accepting something as being moral because they believe God says so, instead of because it logically makes sense. The most typical condition is a belief to some kind of reward in afterlife (so it is also tied to the idea of reducing suffering overall). Most theists don't ask themselves, does God say certain things because they are moral, or are things moral because God says so? Also most theists are ready to justify very heinous acts under the idea that God is on their side, and thus morally sanctifying those actions. "God is on our side" is a powerful idea in sanctifying terrible moral choices.

[CraigD]

The thing is that even when a person "takes their moral values from the bible" as they would say, what they actually do is they just take the ones they already agree with, and ignore the rest. Like the ones about stoning the children, offering your daughters to be raped by angry mob to protect strangers or only taking slaves from other countries.

I agree. It’s a good thing even “Biblical literalists” don’t follow religious law literally, as doing so would, in most Christian nations, be appalling and illegal.

 

I think you’re referring to one of the verses of the Bible better know by atheists than Christians and Jews, Deuteronomy 21 (KJV):

¹⁸ If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

¹⁹ Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

²⁰ And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

²¹ And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Unlike much religious law, this one doesn’t appeal to the authority of any god, but rather alludes to a logical justification. Shortened and put in modern vernacular, it essentially says “we should use capital punishment, because it’s a deterrent.” If Deuteronomy is, as some scholars believe, an accurate description of the laws of 7th Century BC Judah, I imagine they had fewer troublesome, rebellious children than the global norm, and as people with regular personal experience in group killing, a people not to be lightly messed with.

 

I was a theist ‘til about the age of 16, getting the core of my religious instruction from evangelical Christians. The evangelicals of my childhood then and there, 1970s southern West Virginia, were very open to serious religious discussion, and Deuteronomy 21 was a common subject of discussion. The consensus I got from them explained that, in short, Old Testament law applied only to Jews, not Christians, because Christians were subject to a “new covenant”, via Jesus Christ, that trumpet Old Testament law as needed, rather like constitutional amendments override earlier law, except not written explicitly. Rather, we were expected to understand a general Christian general principle that held that kindness and love was the core of all legitimate law, applying it to throw out bad old laws like Deuteronomy 21:18-21’s. Much of the Old Testament, in my old religion’s consensus, was there to emphasis what made us Christians better than our traditional predecessors, Jews.

 

I think my childhood religious instruction was on the whole good for me, as it encouraged me to think deeply about moral questions. It didn’t result in me believe in the supernatural system or accept the history it held forth as factual, but did instill a habit of deep thinking, and, oddly for an atheist, a habit of approaching moral questions with the question “what would Jesus do?”

[AnssiH]

I think you’re referring to one of the verses of the Bible better know by atheists than Christians and Jews, Deuteronomy 21 (KJV):

Yeah, and also the story about Sodoma and Gomorrah, which is plainly a story about the fall of morals in man. God only saves one man (Lot) and his family from the city, whom he decides is not morally corrupt. A demonstration of his moral fiber comes in the way he saves two strangers from being raped by an angry mob;

 

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. —Gen 19:5

 

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8

 

The word "know" is commonly used across the bible as an euphemism to having sex. Some people argue that in this case know only means "to interrogate", but that goes besides the point entirely. So the angry mob was there just to "interrogate", and Lot offers his daughters who have never been "interrogated" by a man, to be "interrogated" instead. Sure.

 

Buuut, maybe Lot knew something about his daughters that we don't, being that when he gets drunk, he gets also raped by his daughters. It really is fun for the whole family.

 

The stuff about slaves refers to Leviticus 25:44 onwards;

 

“However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way."

 

So depending on interpretation it either says only take slaves from other nations, or only take non-Israelite slaves.

 

The defenses of the literalists for these verses are really hilarious... "It's taken out of context", "being a slave was being saved from being killed or starvation", "slavery was more like employer/employee type of relationship", etc...

 

Unlike much religious law, this one doesn’t appeal to the authority of any god, but rather alludes to a logical justification. Shortened and put in modern vernacular, it essentially says “we should use capital punishment, because it’s a deterrent.” If Deuteronomy is, as some scholars believe, an accurate description of the laws of 7th Century BC Judah, I imagine they had fewer troublesome, rebellious children than the global norm, and as people with regular personal experience in group killing, a people not to be lightly messed with.

Yeah, I think it's a good example of something that may seem like intuitively logical to people, but as virtually all of our modern research tells us, a capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent at all. So it's another good example of where biblical morality and scientific morality actually give different answers, and to choose the biblical one is to say that our "best knowledge" is useless.

 

I was a theist ‘til about the age of 16, getting the core of my religious instruction from evangelical Christians. The evangelicals of my childhood then and there, 1970s southern West Virginia, were very open to serious religious discussion, and Deuteronomy 21 was a common subject of discussion. The consensus I got from them explained that, in short, Old Testament law applied only to Jews, not Christians, because Christians were subject to a “new covenant”, via Jesus Christ, that trumpet Old Testament law as needed, rather like constitutional amendments override earlier law, except not written explicitly.

Yup, that's pretty common perspective, and it reflects the desire to make people interpret the bible in a way that leads into whatever the apologist happens to think represents good morals.

 

It is somewhat interesting defense though because what is written rather explicitly (as far as anything can be seen as explicit in the bible) is Jesus stating everything in the old prophet laws (= old testament) still stand.

 

Matthew 5:17 onwards;

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

 

Rather, we were expected to understand a general Christian general principle that held that kindness and love was the core of all legitimate law, applying it to throw out bad old laws like Deuteronomy 21:18-21’s. Much of the Old Testament, in my old religion’s consensus, was there to emphasis what made us Christians better than our traditional predecessors, Jews.

Yeah, I remember hearing the same sentiment when I was a kid. I remember some people defending Christianity as a better religion because other religions "fear their God". The unfortunate side-effect of that sentiment is that it promotes the kind of self-righteousness that makes people believe their opinions are divinely blessed, and thus somehow better than other people's opinions.

 

I never had a theistic ideology myself btw, and very few people around me ever did. Generally theistic people were always viewed as little bit childish. I was taught the typical bible stories at school, and I was quite old before I really explicitly realized that some people actually believed those stories were real.

 

I think my childhood religious instruction was on the whole good for me, as it encouraged me to think deeply about moral questions. It didn’t result in me believe in the supernatural system or accept the history it held forth as factual, but did instill a habit of deep thinking, and, oddly for an atheist, a habit of approaching moral questions with the question “what would Jesus do?”

I would guess though that it's rather your personality makes you think deeply about moral questions, i.e. you would think about the just as deeply had you been exposed to those same questions in non-religious context.