Category: Philosophy, Science & Religion

Posted on

The One And Only One?

I had some Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door the other day – and in the ensuing conversation  I asked them  how they knew that their God was the one and only true God out there.  They couldn’t really answer that of course, other than referring to their bible and inferring that if he indicated that he was the one and only true God out there, we would have to take his word for it.

Not much you can do with an argument like that that – and I guess that is what the nature of religious faith is all about: acceptance without questioning. This is at the core of every religious train of thought – rationality has no place here  – and  as Nietzsche put it once: “Faith means not wanting to know the truth”

However, over the centuries people have attempted to put a rational basis to the foundation of religion, including the claim that God exists. The best known early attempt is perhaps the Ontological argument as presented by St. Anselm (1033-1109), and another version of it by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) – and represents the claim that God must necessarily exist because he is the greatest being imaginable.

One might think differently, but I can’t even begin to understand why this would have made any sense to anyone as it is clearly an unintelligible premise. But those were different times then.

Another and more sophisticated yet equally fallacious argument is the Argument from Design that has more recently surfaced as “Intelligent Design”. The world in all its complexity, so it is claimed, clearly shows evidence of having being designed by an advanced intelligence, therefore, it would be a reasonable hypothesis to assume the existence of a powerful being which possesses such intelligence, and that is God.

There is an attractive side to this line of reasoning given that  it is true that – despite man’s efforts to flush this planet down the toilet one way or the other in the pursuit of more money and power – the world, with all its perceived complexities, appears to work remarkably well, and it would be difficult to accept the premise that this is merely the product of random and accidental interaction between atoms and molecules over billions of years.

Well, at most one might be able to conclude that it is within the nature of the material world to reach the functional state of equilibrium as evidenced here on earth, but it would be an unsubstantiated logical leap to conclude from it that there is or are metaphysical beings of some kind out there that can be said to be the designers or creators of this phenomenon. That would be nothing less than concluding a cause from an effect, and nothing more than to commit the most basic of all logical fallacies, and hence an unproven assumption by any other name.

Posted on

Leave Your Brain At Home When You Go To Church

In 1962 –  not really all that long ago –  the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church issued the following monitum – or reprimand – regarding the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, (1881-1955), a French Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man during his nearly 20 years of research in China.

The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

You see – like Copernicus before him – de Chardin had drawn conclusions about the world that were contrary to religious doctrine. As a trained scientist, as well as a gifted and original thinker, he could simply not accept the ancient folklore around the world’s creation in Genesis – and hence the concept of Original Sin. His evolutionary account of the origin of man as laid out in his most famous book Le Phénomène Humain (The Phenomenon of Man) written before 1940 had to be published posthumously in 1955 because the RC Church did not allow this during his lifetime.

In The Phenomenon of Man, de Chardin attempts to reconcile his faith with the unfolding of the material universe, from the earliest development of life to the presence of human beings, the parallel ascent of consciousness, and to his concept of the Omega Point in the future, the ultimate development of conscious life and convergence with God.

For him, evolution is an intrinsic, teleological or goal-driven process, proceeding from the most elementary particle in the cosmos to the most complex arrangements of matter, capable of ever higher levels of consciousness.

Clearly, Roman Catholic fundamentalism could not accommodate any of this.  It is –and always will remain – in the Dark Ages; its archaic, naïve doctrines seemingly frozen in time, not subject to reinterpretation or revision.  Not then, and especially not now, with with an ultra-conservative patriarchal throwback like Josef Ratzinger at the top of the hierarchy that controls the RC church today: Original thinking is an Original Sin!

Just so you know:  leave your brain at home when you go to church!

… the essence of Christianity, the typical Christian condition, ‘faith’, has to be a form of sickness, every straightforward, honest, scientific road to knowledge has to be repudiated by the Church as a forbidden road. Even to doubt is a sin … (Nietzsche)

Posted on

Creationism and other Bedtime Stories

Over the years I have watched – somewhat bemused, I must admit – the ongoing debate between the proponents of the theory of evolution and those who hold that everything that exists today is the instantaneous product of an act of creation by something or another, typically a super natural being of sorts (I have no idea what that means – and those that believe this don’t know what that means either, although they would say that they do – but as they are unable to demonstrate in any form shape or fashion what it is that they are talking about, it comes down to a leap of faith in the end, and that seems to be the full extent of it. )

This debate is really about the distinction between theory and fantasy – between a descriptive account attempting to relate certain aspects of our observations of the physical world in some coherent and logical fashion, and a fantastic tale pulled out of a hat, a superstition gone rampant, folklore of the most primitive kind, and at best a naive belief in the order of a bedtime story for those who really don’t want to think about such things …

The premise of evolution is that – as a process – it can be applied consistently to give an account of a range of observations related to such things as the fossil record and the development of species. It describes the development of organic life over time, and draws conclusion about the process that underlies it in a compelling manner. It follows observation, not faith, and as such it is – as a theory – subject to continuous revision and refinement, and has stood up well over time. It is plausible account of some intrinsic biological process that brought us here as a distinct species, regardless of the question as to why we are here. Those are different issues. Evolution does not explain itself – why it is present in the first place – what motivates it – or what its aims are. But just because it cannot account for itself in these terms does not invalidate its application to the observable world – it simply is, like the world is – and everything in it. As such it does not remove the mystery of the world – that is not the function of the theory of evolution, and it can no more account for that aspect of existence than the childish claims of creationism.

If creationism can be accused of anything – other than making up stories – it is intellectual dishonesty. Someone might well be a creationist while basing their entire lives on the principles of scientific methodology – that is to say, everything they do or say is a function of astute observation and sound reasoning , of reaching conclusions based on cause and effect, and the subsequent predictability of events. This is how they plan their  daily routines, their economic decision, their careers, their lives .

In that context, creationists  are thoughtful,  rational people. Yet, they abandon all of that when it comes to considering the larger context for this and accept some naive and simplistic account in the order of a  fairy-tale that is entirely without merit..

This as opposed to examining the process that brought us here with the same intellectual tools that they apply to their daily lives.  To adopt the latter approach makes one look at the world with eyes wide open in absolute wonder and – to my mind – enhancing the miracle of the universe infinitely more than reducing it to some magical act by mystical beings.

Posted on

The Meaning of Meaning

Meaning is a function of context – the framework of relationships between people, things and events that bear on a thing or event such that they are placed within this framework in a way that value is provided to the individual or individuals affected by them. And I am using “value” here in either a positive or negative sense, in that the meaning of something can be perceived in a beneficial and desirable light, or in a detrimental and less desirable light.

Only the individual can decide if there is value or not – this is entirely a subjective judgment –  if he or she doesn’t see it that way, the context of that action is devoid of meaning as far as that individual is concerned.  And so it might come to pass that there will be vast differences of opinion about some thing or event being meaningful or not.

All this goes to show is that value or meaning starts and ends with the individual; only they can bestow meaning to the context that they are involved with.  Does this mean that nothing could be intrinsically meaningful?  Since meaning or value isn’t some property of objects or events, e.g. colour, size or duration, they are devoid of meaning or value unless we can make that kind of determination.

Now the reason I want to talk about meaning here has to do with a number of references I have made earlier to “the larger context”, suggesting that there is a greater meaning to be discovered within our day to day existence.  Because  – as I have just shown – meaning is subjective, this larger context will be of our own making if we begin to maximize our human potential beyond being just another beast in the wild – a challenge no doubt but one well worth pursuing if we wish to redefine our relationship with reality on our own uniquely human terms and discover where this will take us.

Posted on

Moving Beyond Survival

Much if not most of what drives a human being today appears to be rooted in the basic need to survive.  Initially very much like the animal that is an intrinsic part of us, we would have had to compete for food, territory and the right to mate like any other animal.

Over time this would have evolved to include the pursuit of power and prosperity to the extent that they are necessary for a sustainable level of survival where one might feel secure enough to turn their mind to other things, such as seeking the larger context of it. This would mean moving beyond survival as an end in itself because you have come to realize that survival in and by itself is essentially meaningless unless it is seen as a means to an end.

(Survive, not because of the creature we are, but because of the creature we are going to be once we are able to release the potential within ourselves. The difference is between accepting the status quo and believing we can be better than that and living our lives accordingly.)

Being able to make that determination is the unique property of human beings as no other creature on this planet is capable of this. We have been given the choice to either live our lives primarily in response to the instinctive needs  we share with our fellow creatures  – and that would be primarily concerned with survival – or to  recognize them for what they are and reach beyond them and unlock the potential that resides within the human genus.

But true human potential will never be realized unless we start taking our cue from the larger context of existence, and as much we are able to determine it within the confines of our day to day experiences.  This will be a question of the whole being larger than the sum of it parts, and the dawning realization that the whole of the cosmos is looking over our shoulder to see if we are able to do right by it.

The challenge here will be to translate experience into a language that allows the larger context to emerge so that we can all be inspired by it. This might well lead to a sense of enlightenment reflective of the fact that we are no longer driven primarily from the bottom up, but from the top down.  By this I mean that we are no longer just motivated by the most basic of  instincts, but instead by a shared sense of purpose centred on community and well-being, knowledge and ideas because survival makes no sense without it.

And so you might be driven by the need to maximize those human qualities that enhance our well-being in whatever realm you wish to consider this: emotionally, intellectually, ethically, socially, physically, and economically. Ideally, there will be a balance between these different ways of being in the world that provides evidence that – indeed – we can progress as a species towards a level of human activity that clearly aims to go beyond those actions that find their root in the need for survival at the most basic of levels.

And the difference in quality between these actions would be one of kind and not of degree, so that something new would be added to the cosmos, such as when life first occurred with the emergence of living matter, or when sentiency first arrived within living systems.  Each time these higher levels of existence came into being they were the product of ever more complex levels of material organization; in the case of the next advance on this evolutionary tract it will be a function of ever more complex levels of human knowledge and interaction that can no longer be reduced to behaviour based on survival instincts.

This doesn’t suggest, naively, we will be able to ignore our “basic” survival instincts to the extent that we consider them no longer relevant.  That would be impossible, as they are an intrinsic part of our human psyche.  However, as opposed to pursuing them for their own sake, we will know them for what they are – and attempt to manage them accordingly in the context of a more enlightened existence.

Posted on

The Cosmos Explained – Well, Maybe …

There is a scene in the movie Terminator 2, where the next generation terminator – who had morphed himself into a cop – is frozen solid after a tanker truck filled with liquid nitrogen spills its load all over him. As a result, he breaks up and disintegrates into a thousand little pieces. But – through some miraculous technology – the little frozen pieces thaw out quickly and a bit like like liquid mercury – roll together back into a cohesive mass and eventually reconstitute the deadly cop/terminator who continues the pursuit of Terminator 1 and his young protégé.

What I want to take from the above episode is the fact that something with an incredible creative ability  was destroyed – either wilfully or by accident – is able to reconstitute itself; that it has this inherent ability.

So – taking this recovery model into an analogy – what if the origin of the cosmos was also a calamity (the “Big Bang” scenario), in which something was destroyed that has the ability recover, and which is now trying to reconstitute itself. This scenario would offer the picture that within each particle in the universe resides the capacity to assemble itself back into ever increasing levels of organizational complexity so that it can become whole once again and regain control of its being. In this process, it is able to morph into whatever shape it has access to given its current environment in order to regain its desired integrity. This would account for all the creativity, drive and determination that evolution continues to demonstrate.

Pure speculation, I’m sure.

Posted on

Does God Have a Belly Button?

According to the Christian bible, God created man in his own image. So this question occurred to me:  Given that we have one, does God have a belly button?  Yes, I know that is a silly question, but I’m sure a Creationist will have an answer for this, and most likely they will reject the question as being “irrational”, since they believe God was not created and already existed before the beginning of time. Presumably, that is a “rational” position to hold for them, as it is consistent with everything else they believe to be absolutely true without a shred of evidence, and  as unlikely as that might be available to them.

Now my theory is that God did not create man – and that in fact the opposite is true: man created God. As a result  – God – in a metaphorical sense, would indeed  have had belly button, since he sprang from the fertile mind of mankind – and today for those who still believe in him  the umbilical cord is still attached and keeping the idea of God alive a little bit longer.

And so man created God, together with all the other creatures that can be said to populate the metaphysical universe. He created God during the first dawn of reflective thought, when his mind became a mirror and he saw the world and himself in it; and when he did not know how or why he came about, or what his purpose in life was. And so he invented the idea of God – a parental creator and authority –  in response to the questions he could not find an answer for – like a soother in the mouth of babes – until such time he would come of age and has the courage to face his destiny on his own, and to accept full responsibility for it.

And this will happen, surely, when he is able to step back from his own ignorance with the realization that he isn’t the creature caught in the mirror,  but the actual source of it – that he is his own prime mover, and the embodiment of the force of life itself. That is: should we ever have the courage to open our eyes to consider and accept this.

 … It suggests that great discovery is the realization of something obvious; a presence staring us in the face, waiting until we open our eyes. (Michael Polanyi, in Science, Faith and Society)

Posted on

Only the Day after Tomorrow Belongs to Me.

” … Some are born posthumously.”  This is  Nietzsche’s way of saying that he has looked beyond the current wretched condition of humanity and is anticipating the arrival of an enlightened being who represents a new and superior iteration of the human race. For this to happen, he claims, we must be: “superior to mankind in force, in loftiness of soul – in contempt … “

Much has been made of Nietzsche’s concept of a superior human being – the Übermensch – but apart from being completely misunderstood and maliciously misappropriated by Hitler’s Nazi scum in the previous century – this is the future human being that will be able to rise above the present human condition.  He will have overcome it in the sense of no longer being taken down constantly by all the human frailties that continue to threaten our extinction as a species: essentially endless everything – endless greed, lust for blood, consumption, exploitation, gratification, debauchery, procreation, stupidity, superstition. In short (!) everything that, as per our exceedingly well documented history, defines us as the immature, confused and seemingly self-destructive species we are so familiar with today.

Posted on

Religious Beliefs

Although beliefs can  and do support each other, they cannot justify each other as at some point a belief must be anchored to reality in order for a belief structure to have any merit at all.

Take religious beliefs for instance. Examining a religious belief is like peeling an onion: after stripping layer after layer there is absolutely nothing at their core. Although some folks simply claim that they “know” that such beliefs are absolutely true – e.g., that a god exists – we can do little but take their word for it as they are unable to clarify what they mean by this assumption.

Beliefs in the existence of deities and other kinds of super-natural beings continue to show themselves to be a seemingly endless source of human tragedy. While they might in principle be no more than nonsensical and hence harmless beliefs, it is at the same time the sickly smell of centuries of savagery and senseless slaughter of thousands of people in the name of such beliefs – and primarily in the competition between such beliefs – when they become weaponized and a major cause of death and destruction on our world, from our distant past to the present moment.

One might claim that this kind of action has nothing to do with the religious beliefs themselves – and that they are misused when wielded as weapons of murder and destruction. No – it is precisely the unsubstantiated and irrational nature of these beliefs that allows them to be used in this manner. When you think you have the almighty creator on your side – all your actions are justified; you cannot be wrong!

Until we shake off the influence of these irrational beliefs, people will continue to be murdered for them.

Posted on

Escape from Entropy?

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system not at thermodynamic equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value, at which point the universe  – as we know it – will cease to exist.

Here I picture the universe as a fantastic fireworks display, initiated by “the big bang”, that lights up the night’s sky with incredible brilliance, but only  to eventually disperse itself into dying embers as it spreads out further and further across the darkening sky, and leaving only darkness behind.

However, there are some places in the universe where this process isn’t necessarily being hurried along so much. If you accept the premise that under conditions such as found here on earth matter appears to have the capacity to evolve into higher levels of organization when conditions allow for it – atoms will gather into molecules, molecules into compounds, compounds in to cells, cells into organism – it is at once a level of defense against entropy as well as an opportunity to reach even higher levels of organization .

This leaves alone the question of how or why this capacity exists, but I would assume the answer to it is gradually being expressed in life’s evolutionary tract and will be clear only after it has reached its destination whatever that may be. I presume we’re just a stop along the way, but it is a race against time by any other name.