Thoughts on man and his universe
Archive for July, 2010
Re-evaluating the value of religion
0
4 years ago
This essay was written on August 13th, 2003 and edited slightly for this post:
Is religion a value to mankind? Some alleged benefits which have been attributed to religion include: scientific and philosophical principles, technologies such as the printing press, the colonization of the new world, great works of art such as Michelangelo’s David and the Sistine Chapel, monasteries that preserved and carried on knowledge during the Middle Ages, social institutions such as charities, schools, and universities. It’s undeniable that all these things have benefited mankind and that religion played a part in them.
On a personal note, I have benefited greatly from the Judaism. A Jewish organization helped my parents come to America, placed me in private school so I could learn English and Hebrew, sent me to summer camp, paid for my trip to Israel, and even helped fund my college tuition. In addition to these material benefits, I learned a lot about history, philosophy, ethics, Hebrew, and social interaction while attending Sunday school and then helping to teach it for three years. Many of my religious teachers were intelligent and inspirational people who taught me many things in the classroom and by example.
So, it is indisputable that religion has done many good things for man. Is this sufficient evidence to conclude that religion is a value to man? The fact that an institution does good is not sufficient evidence that it is good overall. Consider a profession which is not considered desirable despite doing some good for people: medical quackery. A quack who sells a fake remedy for all ailments provides some benefit to people: the placebo effect often makes people feel better, and the alcohol, cocaine, and other drugs contained in remedies were often effective and making their users feel better. However, despite the benefit he provides, the quack also defrauds people, does not fix underlying health problems, and often addicts his patients to his “medicine.” Even though the quack provides a benefit, a real doctor could provide a greater benefit to people without the accompanying harm. Thus, when evaluating religion, we must consider the total effect, not just isolated benefits, and evaluate whether the benefits religion provides are essential to its nature.
Continue reading “Re-evaluating the value of religion” »
Are philosophical claims scientifically provable?
1
4 years ago
This question makes the logical fallacy of the stolen concept. The question of what is “scientifically provable” is derived from our metaphysics and epistemology. We use our basic philosophy to derive the epistemological standard by which to investigate the specific aspects of reality (e.g. physics, chemistry, mathematics, and economics). To demand that philosophical statements be scientifically validated is to demand that a derivative which depends on philosophy be used to prove philosophy. This is like trying to build a house by assembling the roof, walls, and windows before the foundation. It is fine to examine the whole structure of knowledge to verify that it is internal consistent and sound. But we cannot use a higher-level deduction to prove the premise that it depends on. The only way to validate philosophical claims is to use reason: to use logic to validate abstract ideas by reducing them to sensory evidence.
What is the difference between science and philosophy?
Science is distinguished from philosophy by subject matter: science studies the specific nature of the universe, and philosophy (of which religion is a primitive form) studies the fundamental and universal of the universe and man’s relationship to it. Both are concerned with facts, but they differ in subject matter and the standard of evidence. In the field of philosophy, we must be logically rigorous, but we cannot, and need not measure the physical evidence quantitatively as in the subject-specific sciences.
Science is made possible by the acceptance of certain philosophical axioms in metaphysics and epistemology. In metaphysics, science requires recognizing that all entities behave in a causal manner according to their nature. In epistemology, it recognizes that man is capable of perceiving and understanding reality by the use of his senses, and because his consciousness is fallible and not automatic, he needs to actively adhere to reason and logic to reach the right conclusions. Science requires a systematic method to collect evidence and correctly interpret it because knowledge of how nature works is not self-evident.
Science is different in degree from informal empirical methods such as “trial and error” and in kind from non-empirical methods such as revelation, astrology, or emotionalism. But the basic method – of rational investigation based on the evidence of reality must be used in all fields, whether philosophy, law, chemistry, mathematic, or cooking.
More:
The One Minute Case for Science.
What if we took religion seriously?
1
4 years ago
by David Veksler in Mysticism
Virtually no one in the West takes religion seriously. This is fortunate, because if people did, there could be no such thing as “Western civilization.” With 82% of Americans professing a belief in God, does this sound like a silly statement? Let me explain.
The Origin of Religion
The definition of “religion” varies between cultures and scholars, but generally speaking, it originated in pre-history as a solution to a problem:
At some point at the dawn of history, men discovered themselves to be in possession of powerful mental abilities able to perceive the events around them and communicate them to others, but they lacked an explanation for most of the cause of these events. These men needed to know how to act in response to these events, both social and natural. Instinct and imitation no longer sufficed in complex social structures and dynamic environments. Men responded to the challenge by inventing religion. Religion provided both an explanation of natural phenomena and a set of rules for social behavior. It was a primitive form of philosophy — a set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of existence and man’s relationship to it. The nature of these beliefs evolved dramatically over time:
1. The Animism of Primitive Man
Primitive pre-literate man dealt with the chaos of nature by creating animistic spirits which he begged to improve his condition. Since his prayers and offerings were no better than chance, he led an unpredictable existence dominated by fear. Nevertheless, a philosophy of existence, crude as it was, was an important survival asset to the first human settlements. Many thousands of years of pre-history passed in this state.
2. Technological Priesthood & Early Civilization
The first civilizations organized spirits in polytheistic anthropomorphic cults, which held centralized political and religious power. The technological priesthood was an elite which was either closely related to or was ruling elite and monopolized the dissemination of both practical knowledge and supernatural doctrines (there was little distinction between the two), and was thus able to control the peasant masses which it taxed and enslaved to remain in power. Their monopoly of technical knowledge was the cause of their eventual downfall: Egypt, Mesopotamia, Minoa, the Indus valley civilization, the cults organized around the Hebrew temple in Palestine, and the native New World empires successfully kept their secrets from the masses, but were all destroyed by innovative external invaders.
Continue reading “What if we took religion seriously?” »
Faith is emotionalism, Part 2: Perception versus Emotion
0
4 years ago
(This is the second part of selections from a Facebook debate. Part 1 is here.)
Introduction:
The key to my disagreement with the theist hinges on the question of “Can we know God?” or “Can have knowledge of the supernatural?” The theist says yes, we use both experience and the “sensus divinitatus” to acquire knowledge of God. I disagree – I believe that knowledge of reality can only be obtained through reason, and the supernatural is by its very definition opposed to reason. Furthermore, the “divine sense” the theist refers to is just emotionalism. In this post, I will focus on the essence of our disagreement by examining in detail the nature of this supposed divine sense and reveal it to be pure emotionalism.
To recap three key points from my last note:
- I reviewed valid and invalid means of acquiring knowledge and concluded that truth can only be reached by perceiving it and integrating sensory data – e.g. reason.
- Emotions are a kind of thinking that tells us about our mental state.
- We can learn from others, but ultimately new knowledge is formed by integrating new evidence into our own experience of reality.
Introduction: Faith is emotionalism
My key criticism of the theistic argument for faith is: it is emotionalism. But emotions are not evidence of reality, only of one’s mental state. Neither revelation nor any other evidence for the supernatural is possible. I believe this argument is sufficient to disprove all religious convictions, as all other (i.e. “historical”) arguments for the supernatural are revealed to be absurd once a proper epistemology (e.g. reliance on the senses) is assumed.
The Nature of the Senses
Let’s begin with the senses we agree on: sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. This much has been known since Aristotle. What is the exact nature and method of these senses?
Continue reading “Faith is emotionalism, Part 2: Perception versus Emotion” »
Faith is emotionalism, Part 1: Epistemology
0
4 years ago
(In the next few posts, I’m going to re-post selections from a Facebook debate:)
Many apologetics claim that their faith is based on reason and evidence. In fact faith is just a kind of emotionalism.
Two analogies:
Suppose you decided to base your knowledge of reality on the result of dart throws. Whenever you have some doubts about something, you write four possible answers on a dart board. You would aim the dart in the general direction of the board, turn off the lights, and throw. Whichever answer is closest to the dart becomes your conclusion.
What is wrong with this methodology? If you adhere to the correspondence theory of truth (that for a belief to be true, it must correspond to reality) then you should realize that answer “chosen” by the dart has no correspondence to reality. Why not? Because there is no causal connection between your ideas and the random path taken by the dart. The dart’s path is not a valid proof of your conclusion because it is not derived from observation or logical consideration of the ideas in question.
Frustrated, you try another methodology:
You will write down the four answers as before, and then take a large dose of hallucinogenic and amnesia-inducing drugs. You will pick the answer in your drugged state but have no memory of how you selected it when you are sober again. Is this conclusion valid? Now, you are not depending on random chance, but on a distorted version of your own mental processes. Is your method any more valid? No – there is still not causal connection between the idea and your drugged ravings. The answers are you most likely to choose will probably correspond to your existing conclusions. But it will still not be any kind of proof or evidence.
Reason means a valid epistemology:
In order for evidence to be valid, there must be a valid epistemological process. To prove that a claim is true, we must verify it by deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of our own senses in accordance with the laws of logic. This process is known as reason. If we fail to rely on our senses and logic, we might as well be throwing the allegorical darts in the dark. Doing so willingly is irrationality.
What is the “evidence” given for supernatural claims?
There are two possible kinds: empirical claims and non-empirical claims. Empirical claims are based on observation, such as “the universe exists, so God must have created it” or “I saw Jesus on a piece of toast I ate last week.” These claims are wrong, but they do not involve faith, since they can be proven or disproven. No one would take such arguments seriously however if it were not for claims based on non-empirical evidence – faith. This takes many forms in different religions, but generally it is a kind of “revelation.” Ultimately, all revelation can be reduced to emotionalism. How so? This requires an understanding of the nature of emotion:
Continue reading “Faith is emotionalism, Part 1: Epistemology” »
"Free-speech" is for collectivists
0
4 years ago
by David Veksler in General
- Image via Wikipedia
It is a serious mistake to use the term “free speech” as a noun – as if it were an entity distinct from “non-free” speech.
This error comes from the premise that certain (politically-correct) ideological speech should not be regulated, but other kinds of speech may. The origin of idea is the collectivist premise that the sole freedom guaranteed to all individuals is to participate in the democratic process. No other rights exist, as the actions allowable to individuals (including non-political speech) are to be decided by the democratic process.
According to this ideology, everyone should have the freedom to “have a say” in which politician should be elected, but no one is to be granted any other rights, including the freedom to engage in commercial speech and non-mainstream ideological speech. Furthermore, this philosophy of “letting everyone have a say” leads to the violation of legitimate rights, via such things as campaign-finance laws and the use of government funds for political campaigns.
This political philosophy is a reversal of reality, as there is no inherent right to participate in the political process. The existence of a free society depends on the existence of limitations that ensure that only qualified citizens decide on the future of their civilization. For example, this is why (as a minimum) people convicted of serious crimes should not be able to vote.
In conclusion, the right to communicate with others is derived from the individual’s right to life, and the need to cooperate with others to successfully co-exist in society, not the need to participate in a democratic dictatorship.
There is no such thing as “free speech.” All forms of communication should be free of coercion. If you want to refer to the right to communicate, say “freedom of speech.”
Recent Comments