Is science a religion?

[rusmeister]

Ding ding ding!

I meant to have observed sooner (and might have, I dunno, and too lazy to go back and check, but the thought occurred to me again just now) that I think it was Lewis who said something about only the Judeo-Christians have a God who was actively involved in creating the world.

Sorry, but that's crap. Even a cursory study of myths shows that many cultures' origin myths feature active divine involvement in the creation of the Earth.

That sounds like a major misquote of Lewis to me, Ali. I would go back and check - and I'd be interested if there was something of that nature that he actually said. Before objecting to Lewis's idea, though, it's a good idea to make sure you can properly state it.

[Fist and Faith]

It seems to me that your logic ignores the combination of two facts:
1) that there is no thing we can find in this universe that is actually uncaused; that everything, in fact, has a cause.
2) the law of entropy
These two, combined, deny any infinity of C+E. Ergo, the earth (and by extension, the universe) had a definite starting point. Thus, one is back to either random formation (out of what???) or special creation. Both are EQUALLY unprovable and incredible. The fact that the universe exists does not in any way deny the points I listed above or make infinite existence of an existing thing whose every sign shows that it CAN'T have infinitely existed somehow "more logical" merely by the fact of its existing.

It is more logical to believe that the thing that broke what we understand of the rules of existence is the thing that exists. It is not more logical to believe that the thing that broke what we understand of the rules of existence is the thing that does not exist.

[Fist and Faith]

Ding ding ding!

I meant to have observed sooner (and might have, I dunno, and too lazy to go back and check, but the thought occurred to me again just now) that I think it was Lewis who said something about only the Judeo-Christians have a God who was actively involved in creating the world.

Sorry, but that's crap. Even a cursory study of myths shows that many cultures' origin myths feature active divine involvement in the creation of the Earth.

That sounds like a major misquote of Lewis to me, Ali. I would go back and check - and I'd be interested if there was something of that nature that he actually said. Before objecting to Lewis's idea, though, it's a good idea to make sure you can properly state it.

I haven't read that Lewis said what ali just said he said. (hehe) ali, maybe you're mis-remembering the part in Miracles where he said:

I propose for the rest of this book to treat only that form of Supernaturalism which believes in one God; partly because polytheism is not likely to be a live issure for most of my readers, and partly because those who believed in many gods very seldom, in fact, regarded their gods as creator of the universe and as self-existent.

Both parts of which you likely take issue with, anyway. Heh.

[aliantha]

Heh, Fist posted while Magickmaker was clearing her bookmarks from her old laptop...

I did misremember what Lewis wrote, but I was right that he was wrong.

[quote="As Fist noted above, in Chapter 2 of "Miracles," CS Lewis"]I propose for the rest of this book to treat only that form of Supernaturalism which believes in one God; partly because polytheism is not likely to be a live issue for most of my readers, and partly because those who believed in many gods very seldom, in fact, regarded their gods as creators of the universe and as self-existent.[/quote]
He is wrong. Many, many cultures have creation myths. Many, many cultures have gods that exist outside of nature and outside of time.

He goes on, in his next sentence, to say that the Greek gods were not really supernatural in the way that he is using the word (i.e., extra-natural, or totally outside of Nature). I am willing to grant him that. But Greece and Rome were not the only polytheistic cultures that have ever existed on this planet, not by a long shot. He's generalizing based on his knowledge of one polytheistic society, and because of that, his conclusion is incorrect.

It's possible that his debating society included no mythologists, and so would not have caught this error. But knowledge of other polytheistic cultures did exist by the time of Lewis's writing; pioneering ethnographers Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski both died in 1942, and "Miracles" was published in '47.

[Avatar]

1) that there is no thing we can find in this universe that is actually uncaused; that everything, in fact, has a cause.

But at best, god is surely only one possible cause?

And if he was the cause, the same rule must apply...something must have caused him to be there in the first place.[/quote]

--A

[Prebe]

And if he was the cause, the same rule must apply...something must have caused him to be there in the first place.

That's where my reasoning always brings me too, and that's what fundamentaly makes me an atheist. That is IF the religion in question claims that god/gods created the universe.

[Orlion]

And if he was the cause, the same rule must apply...something must have caused him to be there in the first place.

That's where my reasoning always brings me too, and that's what fundamentaly makes me an atheist. That is IF the religion in question claims that god/gods created the universe.

You know what? I've never had a problem with this concept. Who created God? Why, God's GOD. And who created GOD? Why GOD's DIETY, and so forth. Yep, don't have a problem with that, it's kinda like some versions of the origins of the universe: What caused the Big Bang? A Big Crunch, caused by an over expanded universe created by a Big Bang and so forth in an eternal cycle. It's the same general form, and I have no problem accepting it.

[Fist and Faith]

Many scenarios...
- Universe
- God --> Universe
- ...Bang --> Crunch --> Bang --> Crunch --> Bang
- ...God --> God --> God --> Universe

We could even speculate that the previous universe that crunched was God. But that's all it is. Speculation. Any of this. We don't know how the universe came to be. We don't know anything about the origination of universes in general. We don't know if the only one we know exists had to have been caused or not. The only thing we know is that the universe exists. Everything else is speculation.

In one sense, that's all we need to know. I mean, isn't the universe enough to keep us occupied?? Heh. But yes, we are humans, so we search for knowledge. How did it happen? In this case, though, we aren't going to get it. There's just no way of knowing. And any answer that any of us can give is speculation, and can, in one form or another, be applied to the other side.

[rusmeister]

Heh, Fist posted while Magickmaker was clearing her bookmarks from her old laptop...

I did misremember what Lewis wrote, but I was right that he was wrong.

[quote="As Fist noted above, in Chapter 2 of "Miracles," CS Lewis"]I propose for the rest of this book to treat only that form of Supernaturalism which believes in one God; partly because polytheism is not likely to be a live issue for most of my readers, and partly because those who believed in many gods very seldom, in fact, regarded their gods as creators of the universe and as self-existent.

He is wrong. Many, many cultures have creation myths. Many, many cultures have gods that exist outside of nature and outside of time.

He goes on, in his next sentence, to say that the Greek gods were not really supernatural in the way that he is using the word (i.e., extra-natural, or totally outside of Nature). I am willing to grant him that. But Greece and Rome were not the only polytheistic cultures that have ever existed on this planet, not by a long shot. He's generalizing based on his knowledge of one polytheistic society, and because of that, his conclusion is incorrect.

It's possible that his debating society included no mythologists, and so would not have caught this error. But knowledge of other polytheistic cultures did exist by the time of Lewis's writing; pioneering ethnographers Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski both died in 1942, and "Miracles" was published in '47.[/quote]
His generalization has a good basis, even if he was mistaken in that fact, which really makes it a technicality. Polytheism really ISN'T an issue for most readers, and in the development of major world cultures, in the context he is speaking of, it is largely true - you have to reach out to smaller cultures that never became major world cultures to find those kinds of polytheism.

More importantly, his further discussion and conclusions are not thereby invalidated. To stop there and refuse to read further is not a logical thing to do - unless, I suppose, you are a serious polytheist that does believe that their gods are self-existent - and even then, I don't see, at this point, how that would make his discussions invalid even for them (although I'll have to reread the book to be able to say that authoritatively).

[rusmeister]

Many scenarios...
- Universe
- God --> Universe
- ...Bang --> Crunch --> Bang --> Crunch --> Bang
- ...God --> God --> God --> Universe

We could even speculate that the previous universe that crunched was God. But that's all it is. Speculation. Any of this. We don't know how the universe came to be. We don't know anything about the origination of universes in general. We don't know if the only one we know exists had to have been caused or not. The only thing we know is that the universe exists. Everything else is speculation.

In one sense, that's all we need to know. I mean, isn't the universe enough to keep us occupied?? Heh. But yes, we are humans, so we search for knowledge. How did it happen? In this case, though, we aren't going to get it. There's just no way of knowing. And any answer that any of us can give is speculation, and can, in one form or another, be applied to the other side.

Not true. There is more to our knowledge than merely the mental play of speculation, just as there is more to it than mere scientific knowledge. A person can become convinced, and know things by choosing to believe. Yes, this is sometimes based on blind faith, but sometimes it is based on seeing faith. If someone has a personal experience, they may or may not be able to convince others, but for them, it is no longer speculation, but actual experience, such as the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why? Why do you do it? Why? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love? Delusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception, temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the matrix itself, although, only a human mind could create something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now, you cant win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?
Neo: Because I choose to.

That choice, too, is rational. because some things are intolerable and it is more honorable and admirable and right to oppose them than to accept them.

Or take Puddleglum's famous speech from Lewis's "The Silver Chair":

For context, Puddleglum the Marshwiggle, along with 2 children and a prince, is trapped in an underground world by an evil witch. The witch uses her powers to try to persuade her captives to forget the world above, telling them that their idea of a sun simply stems from seeing lamps and wishing for a bigger better lamp, and their idea of a lion stems from seeing cats and wishing for a bigger and better cat. After a few moments, Puddleglum answers:

"'One word, Ma'am,' he said... 'One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things--trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

[rusmeister]

1) that there is no thing we can find in this universe that is actually uncaused; that everything, in fact, has a cause.

But at best, god is surely only one possible cause?

And if he was the cause, the same rule must apply...something must have caused him to be there in the first place.

"At best": One must define what is "good" before one can speak of what is "best" (take it from a grammar teacher who has to teach the concept of degrees of comparison). To deal with your point, though, speaking of infinite possibilities (or even a great many) is not on the table. Humanity never has been so diverse as that, and the general consensus is one God or many gods, or, in the modern* age, a "big bang".

To assume that the same rule "must" apply, one first assumes that there can be no end to the chain of causality; but the Christian view is precisely that the chain does end with an uncreated God. There is no "must" if That which creates is entirely outside of creation, which we grant consists entirely of caused things.

There must be one piece of mysticism which no amount of limited human thought can breach. Grant that, and we are free to live and love and fight. Do not grant that, and we are on a Mobius tube to the madhouse.

* another reminder that the word "modern" is practically pejorative in my vocabulary, meaning "moda", "fashion", "that which is now (temporarily)"

[Fist and Faith]

Not true. There is more to our knowledge than merely the mental play of speculation, just as there is more to it than mere scientific knowledge. A person can become convinced, and know things by choosing to believe. Yes, this is sometimes based on blind faith, but sometimes it is based on seeing faith. If someone has a personal experience, they may or may not be able to convince others, but for them, it is no longer speculation, but actual experience, such as the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

All perfectly true. But, again, remember why I'm involved in these conversations. If my goal was to change your beliefs, I would not have a prayer. (heh) I feel things I cannot prove exist. Love, of course, is the biggest example. I know it is impossible to talk someone out of the experiences they have had that had a large role in the formation of their religious beliefs. Nor do I say those experiences did not actually happen. I simply haven't had any such experiences.

But that's not why I'm involved in these conversations. I'm only looking to see if there's reason for me to believe a creator exists. No amount of other people's experiences, no matter how profound they are to each of you, is reason for me to believe there's a creator. Nor is the concept behind this particular conversation.

And here's why:

To assume that the same rule "must" apply, one first assumes that there can be no end to the chain of causality; but the Christian view is precisely that the chain does end with an uncreated God. There is no "must" if That which creates is entirely outside of creation, which we grant consists entirely of caused things.

There must be one piece of mysticism which no amount of limited human thought can breach.

The problem with mysticism is that it is anything that lies outside of our understanding of the rules of the universe. Is the universe's existence a violation of those rules? We really don't know. It's possible that non-existence must lead to existence. That might be a rule we don't know, simply because we cannot perceive a state of non-existence. If we could see such a... place/thing/state, we might see it suddenly... fill up. The natural order could be that non-existence is an unstable condition, and that it must change.

It could also be that, while the universe seems entirely driven by C&E, a C&E System - in this case, our universe - need not, itself, be caused.

All speculation. But not moreso than the existence of a being outside of the need for C&E. We can't possibly imagine such a situation. It's all idle dreaming. (To say nothing of this being being an omnipotent, omniscient one who created the universe so that you and I could come to be, and who has certain desires/expectations/demands for us, etc etc.) We know nothing of how universe's come into existence, so all answers are speculation.

That being the case, I'm going to assume that the thing I know exists exists, and I'm not going to assume that the thing for which I can't find evidence exists. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to assume the explanation is one that does not involve something that I don't have reason to believe exists.

Grant that, and we are free to live and love and fight. Do not grant that, and we are on a Mobius tube to the madhouse.

Meaningless must lead to madness, again, eh? I may as well go back to saying that embracing Christianity must lead to pride.

Or, I could say that Christians concoct bizarre, ridiculously illogical scenarios about evolution in order to disprove the concept, because it's the only way one can adhere to Christianity in the face of the scientific knowledge we have. Tell lies so you can hold fast to your faith. Better to have a false faith than none, eh?

But I don't say that. I don't even believe that. Just because some Christians' faith is so weak that they must do such things does not mean it is the case with all Christians.

And just because you could not fully believe in meaninglessness without going mad, or just because you know others who have gone mad after embracing it, doesn't mean all who embrace it must go mad.

[Cagliostro]

Can I go mad please? Not the boring catatonic, drool running down my shirt front mad, but the kind where I think I'm Napoleon or someone happier or something. I'll believe in whatever deity as long as someone can convince me I'm someone else rather than this asshole I've become.
Please?

Thanks.

[Cybrweez]

1) that there is no thing we can find in this universe that is actually uncaused; that everything, in fact, has a cause.

But at best, god is surely only one possible cause?

And if he was the cause, the same rule must apply...something must have caused him to be there in the first place.

--A[/quote]

Actually, that doesn't make sense Av. If everything in the universe has a cause, that has no bearing on something outside. Or, at the least, doesn't mean the same rule must apply. Why must we apply rules we observe in the universe to things outside of it?

EDIT: and Prebe, I don't see how such a question could bring you anywhere anyway (if it was logical). Whether universe was caused by God, or something else, or nothing, all are taken on faith. It leads you to atheism why? Because it makes more sense the universe was caused by nothing? It certainly doesn't make sense the universe was caused by the rules of the universe (like physics).

[aliantha]

Rus -- Oh, I agree with you that there won't be many polytheists reading Lewis. And I did say that I kept reading after that point. As I said before, the dealbreaker for me was when Lewis cast The One as the (benevolent) male dictator over Mother Nature.

[Fist and Faith]

Can I go mad please? Not the boring catatonic, drool running down my shirt front mad, but the kind where I think I'm Napoleon or someone happier or something. I'll believe in whatever deity as long as someone can convince me I'm someone else rather than this asshole I've become.
Please?

Thanks.

Don't worry about it. You're a figment of my imagination.

Actually, that doesn't make sense Av. If everything in the universe has a cause, that has no bearing on something outside. Or, at the least, doesn't mean the same rule must apply. Why must we apply rules we observe in the universe to things outside of it?

I completely agree. Nothing outside the universe need follow any of the laws of nature that exist within the universe.

Of course, we have not the slightest evidence that there is anything outside the universe. Which brings us to this:

EDIT: and Prebe, I don't see how such a question could bring you anywhere anyway (if it was logical). Whether universe was caused by God, or something else, or nothing, all are taken on faith. It leads you to atheism why? Because it makes more sense the universe was caused by nothing? It certainly doesn't make sense the universe was caused by the rules of the universe (like physics).

Speculation aside, there is nothing except the universe. That leads him to atheism. (It only leads me to agnosticism. I don't know that nothing exists outside the universe. Possibly even something on which one human or other has speculated.)

BTW, I wonder if we should differentiate between "uncaused" and "caused by nothing." Do you think God was caused by nothing? I'm not sure it makes a difference, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

[rusmeister]

Speculation aside, there is nothing except the universe. That leads him to atheism. (It only leads me to agnosticism. I don't know that nothing exists outside the universe. Possibly even something on which one human or other has speculated.)

Come, come. Gotcha there. saying "There is nothing except the universe" is an enormous dogma taken on faith. If that leads Prebe to atheism, then it is his dogma that "leads" him there - because he has faith in it.

But my question for you is, what would constitute"evidence" that God exists? Are you demanding a personal sign delivered to you? (Be careful what you wish for - you may get it.) Is it scientific evidence, verifiable and experimental, that would bring you to believe?

I don't believe that, generally speaking, that would bring people to belief. Never mind that it would basically demand, not just a personal note from God to each person, but one that somehow leaves them feeling free to choose God or not. Refusal to believe is also a choice, and one made on faith. Saying "I abstain" from choice is just as much a choice as choosing faith or atheism. Worse, really, because you do not (and perhaps will not) take a stand. It is one thing to spend time thinking carefully about this, it is another to assume it as a life position.

Christianity, if false, is not important. If Christianity is true, however, it is of infinite importance. What it cannot be is moderately important.

[rusmeister]

Rus -- Oh, I agree with you that there won't be many polytheists reading Lewis. And I did say that I kept reading after that point. As I said before, the dealbreaker for me was when Lewis cast The One as the (benevolent) male dictator over Mother Nature.

I feel that I've said this more than once, but I can only say that I believe you are assuming that Lewis holds a view about women that he doesn't actually hold. As soon as you perceive any kind of dominance (as you understand it) you interpret that perception according to your worldview, without ever really understanding Lewis's. You are prejudiced against Lewis - as in judging before really understanding, and therefore unable to consider what he says fairly.

And again, the convention of using the masculine pronouns was never, generally speaking, a form of 'patriarchal dominance', but was simply, from the Germanic aspect of our linguistic heritage, the form used to denote all people, without any intent to treat women differently. It is only our generation that has begun teaching the fiction that people did mean such domination by it.

[rusmeister]

And here's why:

To assume that the same rule "must" apply, one first assumes that there can be no end to the chain of causality; but the Christian view is precisely that the chain does end with an uncreated God. There is no "must" if That which creates is entirely outside of creation, which we grant consists entirely of caused things.

There must be one piece of mysticism which no amount of limited human thought can breach.

The problem with mysticism is that it is anything that lies outside of our understanding of the rules of the universe. Is the universe's existence a violation of those rules? We really don't know. It's possible that non-existence must lead to existence. That might be a rule we don't know, simply because we cannot perceive a state of non-existence. If we could see such a... place/thing/state, we might see it suddenly... fill up. The natural order could be that non-existence is an unstable condition, and that it must change.

It could also be that, while the universe seems entirely driven by C&E, a C&E System - in this case, our universe - need not, itself, be caused.

All speculation. But not moreso than the existence of a being outside of the need for C&E. We can't possibly imagine such a situation. It's all idle dreaming. (To say nothing of this being being an omnipotent, omniscient one who created the universe so that you and I could come to be, and who has certain desires/expectations/demands for us, etc etc.) We know nothing of how universe's come into existence, so all answers are speculation.

That being the case, I'm going to assume that the thing I know exists exists, and I'm not going to assume that the thing for which I can't find evidence exists. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to assume the explanation is one that does not involve something that I don't have reason to believe exists.

The idea that non-existence must lead to existence is contradicted by everything that we do know from the natural world. Therefore, the most reasonable position is that it must not. The two propositions are not on equal footing from the get-go. Attempting to treat them as if they were simply ignores what we do know.

C+E IS the rule for our universe. Indeed, the only thing forcing us to think about this is the fact that the idea of infinite C+E is contradicted by entropy, if nothing else. The natural tendency of all things is toward destructuion, breakdown. That's what makes life so miraculous - life is something that challenges this known, universal tendency.

But as to your choice on faith, there is nothing especially reasonable about it. It is a good start that you agree to accept that the universe is real, that it does exist - although there are some particularly mad thinkers who think otherwise. And I agree that you need not "assume" that God exists. if you were able to make that assumption rationally, then we would not be speaking of faith at all, which is a choice. I question, again, what could possibly actually bring you to believe. Even if a dead man appeared to you, you could find a "rational" reason to deny the appearance. It could be a blob of mustard, caused by your digestion, extreme exhaustion, or whatever. You can explain anything away, if you want to explain it away, and most of us would desperately want to explain a weird event away, and to feel that what we experienced need not affect us or effect change in our lives.

And just because you could not fully believe in meaninglessness without going mad, or just because you know others who have gone mad after embracing it, doesn't mean all who embrace it must go mad.

I agree. It is not necessarily madness to embrace contradictory propositions - a natural human tendency, imo. But to consciously do so, once the contradiction (as opposed to paradox) is perceived, is madness. It is unreason, unhealthy thought, insanity. If nothing has any objective meaning, then there is no objective reason to do anything. Why? is just as valid a question as Why not? and both equally meaningless. Our very reason becomes meaningless - a pointless dance of atoms (whatever they are) in the synapses of our brain (whatever they are). And THAT is what meaninglessness necessarily leads to. One can refuse to follow that that IS what it leads to, but that is one's choice to not think, that is all, a choice to wear blinders.

[aliantha]

Rus -- Oh, I agree with you that there won't be many polytheists reading Lewis. And I did say that I kept reading after that point. As I said before, the dealbreaker for me was when Lewis cast The One as the (benevolent) male dictator over Mother Nature.

I feel that I've said this more than once, but I can only say that I believe you are assuming that Lewis holds a view about women that he doesn't actually hold. As soon as you perceive any kind of dominance (as you understand it) you interpret that perception according to your worldview, without ever really understanding Lewis's. You are prejudiced against Lewis - as in judging before really understanding, and therefore unable to consider what he says fairly.

And again, the convention of using the masculine pronouns was never, generally speaking, a form of 'patriarchal dominance', but was simply, from the Germanic aspect of our linguistic heritage, the form used to denote all people, without any intent to treat women differently. It is only our generation that has begun teaching the fiction that people did mean such domination by it.

Lewis deliberately picked "she" to refer to Nature. The sentence that set me off was far from his first use of it. And I noticed it right away -- specifically *because* English historically has used "he" as the third person singular pronoun when the gender is unknown. (I made a living as a writer for 20 years and I have a master's in fiction writing. So I'm kinda conversant with the conventions of the English language. )

I'm sure he did it because people often refer to Nature as "Mother Nature". I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I thought it was kind of nice when I read it the first time. What brought me up short was his offhand comment about it being totally normal and natural that male should dominate female.

Look, I'm not saying he placed the *misogynism* there deliberately. I'm saying that Lewis's comment is reflective of the mindset of the vast majority of mid 20th century white males. And it's likely that none of his peer reviewers noticed it because they, too, were mid 20th century white males.

Apparently it reflects your mindset as well, Rus, since you didn't notice it, either, and apparently it doesn't bother you even when it's pointed out to you. So I'm not surprised that you're on the defensive.

You keep saying I misunderstand Lewis's worldview, and I keep telling you that I *lived* it. I'm not prejudiced against Lewis; I don't care two pins about Lewis. But I *do* get kind of torqued at people who repeatedly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.