(Scroll down for English.)
Ek is besig om die boek What is your Dangerous Idea? te lees. Dis 'n heerlike, interessante, stimulerende boek - nes, vermoedelik, sy voorgangers wat ook deur John Brockman van Edge saamgestel is, What we Believe but cannot Prove en The Next Fifty Years.
Die vraag wat in Dangerous Idea sentraal staan, is deur die sielkundige Steven Pinker voorgestel en herinner aan die titel van 'n boek oor Charles Darwin, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Dit bied boeiende insig in van die idees waarmee van die wêreld se voorste wetenskaplikes in hul kop rondloop. Die boek is egter nie sonder swakhede nie.
'n Probleem wat ek met die boek het, is dat "dangerous" op te veel verskillende maniere verstaan word. Party bydraers bedoel daarmee idees (gewoonlik iemand anders s'n) wat werklik gevaarlik is. Ander bedoel idees (gewoonlik hul eie) wat briljant , maar vir sommige ander mense bedreigend, is. Nog ander bedoel 'n idee wat so 'n bietjie way out is.
Nog 'n tekortkoming is dat dit darem 'n baie VSA-sentriese boekie is - en wanneer daar wel van die res van die planeet kennis geneem word, taamlik Anglo-sentries. In my ervaring as idee-junky kom van die interessantste idees nie uit dié kring nie, maar van elders. Maar dit daar gelaat.
Een ding wat my telkens weer by die lees van die verskillende bydraes opval, is die naïewe, ongesofistikeerde manier waarop filosofiese kwessies behandel word. Sodra 'n ontologiese, aksiologiese of epistemologiese vraag aan die orde is - en dit wil lyk asof wetenskaplikes 'n publikasie soos Dangerous Idea veral gebruik om sulke vrae aan te roer - dan is dit asof baie van die hoogs intelligente, geleerde mense wat tot die boek bygedra het, skielik lomp en stompsinnig word. Amper soos iemand wat met oondhandskoene aan klavier probeer speel (om beeldspraak te leen van 'n Nederlander wat dít gesê het oor sy taalgenote wat in Engels probeer skryf).
Dit kom na vore in die manier waarop "science" en "religion" teenoor mekaar gestel word; die wyse waarop oor daardie drie klassieke vraagstukke, God, vryheid en onsterflikheid, gepraat word; beskouings oor moraliteit, ideologie en politiek; menings oor identiteit en die self; en so meer. Die toon van die meeste uitlatings wat in hierdie verbande gemaak word, herinner my voortdurend aan die soort argumente wat ek my vriende op hoërskool gehad het - daar is inderdaad iets adolessent en geeky aan. En ook 'n macho-agtige soort bravade wat eintlik lagwekkend is. Erger: 'n perverse soort uitstalling van eie fanatisme en simplistiese denke.
Om 'n misverstand uit te skakel: Ek het geen beswaar daarteen dat bepaalde wetenskaplike bevindings gebruik word in 'n argument teen bepaalde godsdienstige (of morele, politieke of ander) oortuigings nie. Ek verwelkom dit ook as argumente teen wilsvryheid, die bestaan van God of lewe ná die dood aangevoer word. Ek is iemand wat daarvan hou om uitgedaag en en aan die dink gesit te word, en ek verkies boeke deur en gesprekke met mense wat anders as ek na die wêreld kyk. Die probleem is dus nie dát sciëntisme, ateïsme, determinisme en so meer verdedig word nie. Dis eerder dat die verdediging daarvan so pateties is; dit gee 'n mens niks om jou tande in te slaan nie.
As iemand wat graag oor onder meer lewensbeskoulike kwessies nadink en gesprek voer, en wat deur onder meer die Christelike tradisie aangespreek voel, het ek groot behoefte aan argumente wat my uitdaag, my vrae laat vra, my laat wonder. Ek hoop elke keer dat wetenskaplikes my hiermee kan help, maar hulle stel my elke keer teleur. Dit geld nie net dié boek en die kring waaruit dit ontstaan het nie, maar ook webwerwe soos Prometeus Ongebonde en Tart Remarks, om van boeke soos The God Delusion en Letters to a Christian Nation nie eens te praat nie. Byvoorbeeld: Hoe ek ook al op dié plekke soek, ek kan nie een goeie argument teen die bestaan van God vind nie. En ek sóék een, met 'n seer hart!
Dit geld ook nie net wetenskaplikes en hul star struck groupies se uitlatings oor godsdiens nie, maar ook die manier waarop hulle oor enigiets redeneer wat 'n bietjie laterale denke vereis: die moontlikheid dat 'n teorie wat hulle aanvaar dalk heeltemal verkeerd kan wees, byvoorbeeld.
Hoekom is dit? Is dit as gevolg van wat die Switserse teoloog Gerhard Ebeling, in 'n fassinerende debat met die kritiese rasionalis Hans Albert, 'n "eensydige geestelike dieet" noem: dat mense wat in die empiriese metode geskool is eenvoudig onderontwikkelde konseptuele en logiese vermoëns het?
Ja, ek weet ek veralgemeen. Om daardie ou cliché te gebruik: Van my beste vriende is wetenskaplikes ... Maar die vraag pla my tog. Hoe kan so baie wetenskaplikes so slim en tog so dom wees?
ENGLISH:
I am busy reading the book What is your Dangerous Idea?. It's a delicious, interesting, stimulating book - just like, presumably, its predecessors complied by John Brockman of Edge, What we Believe but cannot Prove and The Next Fifty Years.
The question at the centre of Dangerous Idea was proposed by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and recalls the title of a book on Charles Darwin, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It offers a fascinating insight into some of the ideas that some of the world's best scientists carry around in their heads. But the book is not without weaknesses.
A problem that I have with the book is that "dangerous" is understood in too many different ways. What some contributors mean by it is ideas (usually someone else's) that are truly dangerous. Others mean ideas (usually their own) that are brilliant but threatening to some other people. Yet others mean an idea that is a little way out.
Another shortcoming of the book is that it is just too USA-centric, and when the rest of the planet is occasionaly taken notice of, largely Anglo-centric. In my experience as an idea junky some of the most interesting ideas come, not from these circles, but from elsewhere.
Be that as it may, one thing that strikes me again and again as I read the different contributions is the naïve, unsophisticated manner that philosophical issues are dealt with. As soon as an ontological, axiological or epistemological question arises - and it seems that scientists use a publication like Dangerous Idea especially to raise these kinds of questions - it is as if many of the highly intelligent, erudite people who have contributed to the book, suddenly become clumsy and obtuse. Nearly like some who tries to play piano while wearing oven gloves (to borrow a metaphor from a Dutchman who said this of his countrymen who try to write in English).
This emerges in the way "science" and "religion" as opposed to one another; the way those three classic philosophical issues, God, freedom and immortality, are talked about; views on morality, ideology and politics; opinions about identity and the self; and such like. The tone of most of the statements made in these contexts, keeps reminding me of the kind of arguments my friends and I used to have in high school - there is, indeed, something adolescent and geeky to it. As well as 'n macho type of bravado that is actually quite laughable. Worse: a perverse sort of exhibitionism about the writers' fanaticism and simplistic thinking.
To prevent misunderstanding: I have not objection to particular scientific findings being used in an argument against particular religious (or moral, political or other) convictions. I also welcome it when arguments are advanced against the existence of God, free will or life after death. I am someone who likes to be challenged and made to think, and I prefer books by and conversations with people who have a different take on the world than I. So, the problem is not that scientism, atheism, determinism etc. are defended. It's rather that the defences are so pathetic; it offers nothing that one can sink your teeth into.
As someone who likes to reflect on and converse about view of life questions among others, and who feels touched by, among others, the Christian tradition, I have a great need for arguments that challenge me, that let me ask questions, that make me wonder. I always hope that scientists would be able to help me here, but they always disappoint me. This applies not only to the book in question and the circle from which it emerged, but also websites like Prometheus Unbound and Tart Remarks, not to mention books like The God Delusion and Letters to a Christian Nation. For instance: No matter how hard I search in these places, I cannot find one good argument against the existence of God. And I'm desperately looking for one, with tears in my eyes!
This applies not only to the comments of scientists and their star struck groupies about religion, but also the way they argue about anything that requires a little lateral thinking: the possibility that a theory they accept may be completely wrong, for example.
Why is this? Is it because of what the Swiss theologian Gerhard Ebeling, in a fascinating debate with the critical rationalist Hans Albert, called "a one-sided mental diet": that people schooled in empirical methods just have underdeveloped conceptual and logical skills?
Yes, I know I'm generalising. To use that old cliché: Some of my best friends are scientists ... Nevertheless, the question bugs me: How can so many scientists be so smart yet so stupid?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Gerrit, you say you have never encountered a convincing argument that God does not exist. I am not surprised. You will never find a convincing argument either against or for God’s existence.
That is because God is not an object in the world who can be either proven or disproved. (I exclude for now the perspective ironically shared by both the naïve theist and the naïve atheist: That the divine is an empirical “thing”, occupying a defined point in space and time, who could in principle be the subject of our ordinary sense perception.)
If the (non-naïve) theists are right, God’s “existence” is akin to the existence (or not) of an objective world independent of our subjective consciousness. Like the world itself, God is the metaphysical basis of the objects of our perception. He is not so much Being as the medium of being. Therefore, he cannot himself be the object of perception
Everything depends upon where you start:
Presuppose that God does not exist. Demand that the priest prove the contrary. Priest loses.
Presuppose that God exists. Demand that Dawking prove the contrary. Dawking loses.
Q.E.D.
Michael Osborne
Michael, of course you're right: God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved. But I am not looking for a proof that God does not exist. rather, I am looking for a convincing argument against God's existence. Put more precisely: I am looking for an argument against the wisdom of presupposing, or "starting from" the assumption, that God exists. Such an argument would be something quite different from an argument in favour of, or against, the existence of, say, quarks or the ether, which can be based on empirically evidence. It would be an existential, moral or pragmatic argument. Yet those who wish to discredit religious faith tend to concentrate on a type of arguments that are simply inapplicable to the case in point (for the reasons you mention).
I think I see the distinction you are driving at. It is a valuable one But let me ask you this, Gerrit: What would COUNT as an "argument" for starting with the premise that God exists? That it makes one happy? Some variety of Pascal's wager? That it is the more fruitful hypothesis? That its makes moral decisions less agonising? Perhaps.
I suppose the objection to your demand for an "argument" to support any given pre-commitment is that such are by definition not based on "argument" at all. These "decisons" are pre-rational. They are founded neither on reason or "argument," rather upon accidents of birth, or biology, or a epiphinal vision. Or perhaps they are based upon an aesthetic insight ...
Or, perhaps an a-rational embrace of God is based upon what Chritians call "Grace" - an unmerited, inexplicable, intervention of the Divine. Either you get it, or you don't. Reason and argument count for nothing.
I speak as one who has not myself experienced Damascus. In other words, I just don't "get it."
Michael Osborne
Ah, poor Gerrit.
Now he is asking questions, making statements, working hard to console himself and others that the atheists are wrong, and that god is alive and well and living somewhere in the Milky Way.
Lets start with some important questions for Gerrit.
1.) Do you (Gerrit) take the holy bible literally?
2.) Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
3.) Are people from other faiths going to burn in hell someday?
4.) During the apartheid years, the Afrikaners were told across the country, from every pulpit, that they are god’s chosen people. That black people won’t go to heaven, and are not allowed into our churches. Did god change his mind, or how do you explain that period in our history, and what has changed?
5.) All the poor people who are suffering so much across the world, did god forget about them? Does he care about them? Why is the biggest part of the human race living in poverty and disease?
6.) Why did god wait till 2000 years ago to bring us the “one and true” religion? Is everyone else going to hell that was born before that time?
7.) How does Gerrit explain all the horrible stuff written about in the bible, and the evil deeds committed in god’s name and by his orders? Here is an example: A warning label for the bible: “”CONTENT ADVISORY:
Contains verses descriptive or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness and human rights violations and atrocities.
EXPOSURE WARNING: Exposure to contents for extended periods of time or during formative years in children may cause delusions, hallucinations, decrease cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, violence including but not limited to fanaticism, murder and genocide, endangering your mental health and life”. “”
People like Gerrit are terrified that there is no god. They are terrified that they are wasting their lives on their knees. They are terrified that there is no heaven. They are really terrified of the thought that they will just die and rot away like every other organism on this planet when their time is up. Poor bastards! So they cling to mythical believes or many different kinds. All across the globe people believe in some sort of spiritual afterlife scenario.
If Gerrit answers these couple of questions above, then maybe it is a start. He says he can’t find any good arguments against the existence of a god. Well, maybe he should look closer to his own believes and his own god and his own bible.
Gerrit writes: “Put more precisely: I am looking for an argument against the wisdom of presupposing, or "starting from" the assumption, that God exists.”
Well for starters, a person should attempt to understand why, in his/her specific case, he/she presupposes the existence of God. In your own case Gerrit, the answer is almost 99% certain to be the mere fact of your growing up in an Afrikaner household in the last century. It is not more complex than that. Had you grown up in Jerusalem, Cairo, Beijing or Mumbai you would have held a completely different world view, with equal conviction.
Secondly, the term “God” carries very specific content in your Christian world view. It presupposes a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent being with emotions that seem (to an outsider at least) rather human. Which immediately brings one to the Epicurean paradox – I am quoting David Hume’s formulation: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
This is not as trivial a problem as you may think. But your world view is bound to be so ingrained after all these decades of Christianity that you will not even recognise the Epicurean paradox as a valid argument against the wisdom of presupposing that God exists.
Michael Osborne writes: "Like the world itself, God is the metaphysical basis of the objects of our perception. He is not so much Being as the medium of being. Therefore, he cannot himself be the object of perception"
Michael, do you have any supporting evidence for the above statement? If so, please provide it here.
If not, your statement carries exactly as much weight as the following: "Like the world itself, Quetzalcoatl is the metaphysical basis of the objects of our perception. He is not so much Being as the medium of being. Therefore, he cannot himself be the object of perception."
In what sense is your first statement any more "valid" or "true" or "accurate" than the edited second one, which could have been uttered by a Nahuan or Mayan in Meso-America a few centuries ago?
Gerrit wrote: "I am looking for a convincing argument against God's existence. Put more precisely: I am looking for an argument against the wisdom of presupposing, or "starting from" the assumption, that God exists."
Gerrit, I cannot conceive of having an argument without any evidence or premise to argue about.
If your premise is "God exist", there must be evidence to back it up.
We are all born without as atheist without a belief in the Christian God - it gets tought and accepted as truth while young and gullible.
Your argument of juxtaposing belief in god against belief against it, is not valid. All premises are not equal, some are just silly or wrong.
A belief that the universe is contained in an invisible gigantic glass iron jar cannot be disproven.
But it will be silly to think that believing in such a premise is on the same level as disbelieving it.
Post a Comment