Coasters and BABloggee and anyone else: I have a page on the main site with links to the topics we discussed on the radio Thursday night.
I was on the Coast to Coast AM radio show last night, and, as usual, had a great time. Of course, being up until 3:00 a.m. local time, I was probably delirious. Still.
George Noory is a gracious host, and it’s always fun to wonder what he’ll bring up. We usually cover a lot of scientific ground, of course, but we sometimes slip into a little philosophy. I talked a bit about the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science. I’ll have to find a recording of the program and listen again to what I said. I can’t remember it word for word, but it felt right.
Basically, a lot of people say that science tells us the how of things, and religion the why. I don’t agree: first, there are so many religions that disagree on both the why and the how that there is a lot of noise. Science provides a way to cut through that noise. It addresses the how, certainly, but that leads to the why. For example, by investigating how the brain works, we have learned a vast amount about psychology: why we do things the way we do, why we think the way we do.
How –> why.
So we may all disagree on why the Universe exists due to our own prejudices, but science, when used properly, cuts through that. Evidence piles up, hypotheses are dreamed up, discarded or fortified, and eventually, organically, the why comes through.
That’s why science is so cool. And that’s really only one reason science is so cool. There’re lots more.
Anyway, if and when the folks from C2C want me back on, I’ll be there. I really like talking about these and other matters, and taking calls from the listeners. I also kinda like staying up late, too. For once I don’t feel guilty about crawling out of bed at 10:00 in the morning!
December 28th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Have you seen the SOHO images today? They have over a dozen pictures posted and I wonder if it is just pixels out of wack, space junk, a new planet or maybe the impact object for Mars next month?
Looking to a skeptic for an honest anwser…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/c3/512/
December 28th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Awesome show last night. I was curious. If NASA has a telescope that can detect gamma rays in other galaxies. Would there be any type of military applications for that scope for finding nuclear materials(and where they shouldnt be possibly) on earth from space???
December 28th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Jim,
My purely non-professional guess is that those are simply artifacts from the extra-bright objects (planets?) in the images on the imaging device.
Either that, or Saturn and its twin, which is normally hidden from view from Earth.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
On the “how –> why” thing:
In his first leg of the book tour for “The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins and Tony Benn were guests on a BBC morning news programme. Benn made the same claim as to the utility of religion. I just shook my head and wondered “which religion tells us the why part?” If I relied on religion for the why, I would be even more confused about life than I am now.
For the record, I did some serious soul-searching and tried to find a religion that explains the “why” before I just finally threw my hands in the air and said “They are all faking it.”
I think that sociobiology, cultural geography, anthropology, social psychology and sociology can help explain a lot more about the “why” part than religion can.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
When debating the semantics of philosophy I always like to point out that five of the six fundamental questions can be rephrased as the seventh.
Who -> What Person
When -> At What Time
Where ->What Place
Why -> For What Reason
How -> In What Manner
There’s nothing profound there, just semantic dilly-dally but it takes the wind out of the sails of would-be philosophers.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Wow, I wrote the word “seventh” when I meant “sixth.” I should learn to proofread.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
That was fun listening. I really enjoyed the lady who called in asking if the Sun was alive. I kind of knew it was going to be one of those calls by the sound of her voice, kind of slurring words and stuff… hehehe.
I appreciate your comments about science answering the how, and I can see how if also answers the why. I guess the God question is a personal thing for each of us. Whether one chooses to believe in God or not, that is something that they have to wrestle with, as I am now. Personally, I don’t know if science can answer, what to me is the greatest mystery: What lies beyond the grave? To say, “Nothing”, seems pretty fatalistic to me, and leads to asking, “Then what is the point of existence?” To take one religious view of God over another seems just as futile. If we are God’s children, and he is our father, why would he send his children to the “ultimate time out” – hell? Yes, I know all the “biblical” reasons, but, to me that does not make sense either. I have my daughter here with me. I could never imagine rejecting her because of something she did wrong. Why would a “God who is love” do that with us? Arghhhhhhhhhh!!
December 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Bad, my lad, you get an A+ in science and an F- in philosophy. No, science can’t tell you why. It can tell you how nature works, but not why nature exists. Take ethics — science can tell you how nutrition works, but it can’t tell you to feed the poor.
I’ll put down an imaginary conversation to illustrate my point. This takes place between a theist, T, and an atheist believer in scientism (as opposed to science), A:
A: Science can show how ethics evolved from the group dynamics of primates. Kin selection explains altruistic behavior.
T: So why should I be altruistic?
A: Because altruistic behavior helps the species to survive.
T: Why should the species survive?
A: Are you nuts?
T: No. I’m asking a question. Why should the species survive?
A: Because we’re in it.
T: But the survival of the community might require me to sacrifice my life. Why should I do that?
A: Because the community won’t survive if you don’t.
T: Why should I care whether the community survives?
A: Are you nuts?
T: No. I’m asking a question. How do I benefit from sacrificing my life to save the community?
A: You save your family.
T: I might not have a family. I might be sterile.
A: Then you save your species.
T: Why should the species survive?
And so on. Science simply can’t answer “Why.” That’s not the sort of thing science is set up to do, and attempts to make it do that, to turn it from a method of investigating nature into a method of answering all questions, are doomed to fail from the outset.
Those of us who want humanity to survive ultimately have to take it as a premise “that man ought to be preserved.” You can’t get from an is-statement — the kind of thing science answers — to an ought statement. Every attempt to do so is a non sequitur by definition.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Michael Lonergan –
If you really want an explanation for the existence of Hell, and how a good God can allow it, I’m prepared to give you one. But if I demonstrated logically that the two were compatible, would that make you believe in it? I.e., are you looking for a way to justify your unbelief, or do you really want to know the answer?
December 28th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
And hte rhetorical games that allow you to simultaneously believe in a god that is pure love, and a place of eternal torment to which this loving god sends people, isn’t just a way to justify your nonsensical belief system?
Or do you really want to know the answer?
December 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Barton Paul Levenson, you have decided to use a particularly dim atheist for your little Socratic exercise. Some may even call strawman!
December 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
How -> why thing:
I have to agree with Barton, science cannot explain why. I like his imaginary conversation, I would also add this analogy. A scientist can map the brush strokes and even give the history of the Mona Lisa, but they cannot explain the beauty or mystery behind it.
To Michael I would say that I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there is no life after death and that this life is it. What is important is what we make of our lives and the impact we have on this world. I would also add that we came into this life with no knowledge, and if there is a next life, deal with it then, just like you’ve done in this life.
If you are looking in the Bible, remember that Judaism originally had no concept of an afterlife. In Deut. there is a passage about if you live a good life, and do the right things, you’ll have plenty of rain and bountiful harvests. This afterlife concept was developed by the Rabbis to justify why too many times this passage is not true.
I will tell you I do not believe God created the Universe, but instead believe that God is a moral compass and does offer insight into the answer of why.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Barton Paul Levenson, that fictional dialogue is a nice illustration, but I do not think it illustrates what you think it illustrates. Dividing questions into “how” and “why” is an oversimplification.
There is no universal methodology for finding answers to the big questions of “why?” as in “why does the universe exist?” or “why should I assist the species to survive?”. Religions seem to offer answers, but they offer no means of choosing one set of answers from another.
Science offers us something that religion never can:- a means by which to arrive at some kind of agreement about what the truth is. To do this, science demands that questions be specific, not general. Eventually, a field of inquiry may yield some general answers, but this would only be as the combination of many observations and several tried-and-tested hypotheses unified by a theory.
Science can answer many specific “why” questions. It can answer a few general “why” questions. But the current state of science does not allow us to answer any of the really big “why” questions. This means that there is plenty of room for new research and further scientific inquiry.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
BA:
I did my best to stay up, but I fell asleep during your interview, which led to an interesting dream:
While you were on the show, my wife had to babysit your kids because you’d be too busy on the phone to look after them yourself. And I had to pick her up after the interview was over. I wanted to try to get there a couple minutes before the end of the show b/c I thought it would be cool to hear your interview in the car on the radio, and then walk into your house and see you on the phone conducting that same interview. I ended up being a few minutes late, and you were furious about something.
That’s it. Nice house, btw.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
That “how not why” canard is one of my biggest peeves. Science can tell you how, why, where, and whatever, it just can’t tell you what you should want or how you should feel about something.
I have to wonder if anyone who buys that “science can’t answer why” thing has small children, because they are little socratic maniacs with their “why” questions, most of which are science questions. (And if you bear through them, you can get from “why do we need to go to the grocery store” to thermodynamics in less than a dozen questions)
December 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
If you do find a web-accessible recording of your appearance, please post it. I tried to set up a recording, but too little time foiled my intent. But, I’d really like to hear it.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I thought it was a great show last night … one of the most interesting in a while. I like the fact that youl didn’t get “all crazy” with the things that “could” happen but not necessarily in our lifetime. I get tired of all the doom and gloom of the show.
I look forward to hearing you again, soon .. I hope … I’ll be looking for the book.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Michael, the “Nothing” beyond the grave is not fatalistic at all, it is a liberation! You are free to do with your life what you want, and to give your life meaning the way you want.
Religions also do not answer the “why” question. I am convinced that the need for religion originates in a personal emotion or feeling that there must be something transcending ourselves, a deity or a pantheon of gods. People have this emotion to lesser or greater extent, with the atheist on one end of the spectrum, and the devout on the other.
The problem arises when the devout claim their deity is somehow real in the sense that tables and chairs are real, and that it requires submission and worship by everybody else.
Example: I love my wife. This love is real in the sense that I feel the emotion very strongly, but it is not real independent of me. Do I want to force others to love my wife? Certainly not.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Jim (first comment): I’m not sure what you mean in the SOHO images, but right now the two brightest objects are Mercury (on the left of the Sun) and Jupiter (on the right). I checked against my planetarium software and I can see lots of stars that match up, so I am 100% confident of this. If you mean something else, I’ll need more info from you.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Barton, I think you are wrong. Your conversation is a strawman, reflecting your own prejudices, I think.
I made the point about why and how pretty clearly in my post, IMO. The argument your scientist makes is essentially correct, but a bit dim when it comes to personally applying it.
Altruism, for example, is an evolved trait. That doesn’t mean that everyone has it, or will choose to sacrifice themselves if needed. It just means that is has happened in our ancestors enough times in the past for our society as a whole to value it. Individuals vary.
And that individual variance is the summation of their brain structure, experience, and personal attributes… all of which lead to why they make the choice whether or not to commit self-sacrifice.
As I said, the more you learn about “how”, the more you learn about “why”. That’s what science does.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Barton Paul Levonson:
Your dialog depends on an assumption of basic human nature, which can be explained by science, at least in principle.
The question “Why should I be altruistic?” illustrates an absolute use of “should” which I find meaningless. It’s not that we “should” behave some way, we just do. We do because of human nature, which has evolved to equip us to pass on our genes (not, BTW, for the survival of the species) The only way “should” becomes meaningful to me is if it refers to a course of action intended to lead to some outcome. “If you want to go from Washington DC to Savannah Georgia, you should take I-95.”
Why “should” we have evolved to pass on our genes? Because that’s what happens when resources are limited and variation is heritable.
The so-called big questions are, for the most part, completely meaningless.
The “why” that religion answers is based on the made-up stories of the religion itself. It is entirely self-referential.
It reminds me of the 18th century religious nuts blaming Ben Franklin for an earthquake in New England, since God couldn’t smite the wicked with lightning as Ben had invented the lightning rod.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
BPL,
You ask Michael Lonergan “I.e., are you looking for a way to justify your unbelief, or do you really want to know the answer?”
It seems to me that believers are constantly looking for ways to justify their irrational beliefs. I would love to hear your tortuous explanation of how a being that we should call our “Father” could simultaneously love us and burn us in a lake of fire, for eternity no less, for the unpardonable offense of not believing that he came down to earth two thousand years ago to get hung on a big stick so his blood could expunge the “original sin” that we inherited from the first humans that ate a piece of “forbidden” fruit.
Sorry if that synopsis wasn’t reverent enough to suit your tastes, but I believe it pretty accurately covers the topic.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I enjoyed the show. Great job! I know I have learned a lot when my answers mirror yours.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Barton, in regards to hell: I think we create our own hell in this life. Again, I think that a “loving God/Father in heaven” would not condemn His children to an everlasting place of torture for not being obedient, just as I would not beat my children for not picking up after themselves. BTW, I know all the arguments for hell, as I used to teach it.
Thanks to those with voices of reason. Barton, (with apologies for any offense) has proven once again the irrationality of faith.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Hmmm… I wonder if Jason is really Mrs. BA, and this “dream” wasn’t a dream?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
[...] Coast to Coast AM wrap up I talked a bit about the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science. I’ll have to find a recording of the program and listen again to what I said. I can’t remember it word for word, but it felt right. … [...]
December 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Barton, I find it odd that in your hypothetical dialog, it’s your caricature of the rationalist who is portrayed as being unconcerned about the long-term survival of mankind.
My experience has been quite the opposite — that it’s the extreme religious types who seem least interested in preserving the species, since they assume we’re approaching the end times anyway. Quite a few seem positively eager to bring on the rapture as soon as possible — witness the strange bedfellows of millennial Christians and certain Jewish sects.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Right on Phil!!
Science \rightarrow How \rightarrow why!!
That’s why I am such a fan of yours.
Religion is based on fear of death. We need
to vastly extend our lifespans, and then this
fear will decrease. That is why, the religious
right is so afraid of stem cells etc. They know where their power comes from.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Kalani — yes we have space telescopes that can detect gamma rays from great distances. No it wouldn’t be very useful to the military, as gamma rays can be hidden with several inches of lead. A nuclear warhead doesn’t emit much gamma radiation until its exploding – and then of course its too late!
December 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
hey i want to download this inteveiew w/ the bad astronomer. if anyone has a link to the mp3 download please e-mail me at 3monk.e AT gmail.com
thanks!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Peter Atkins (famous Oxford Chemistry prof.) once said in a debate against Alister McGrath that every “why” question can be broken down into “how” questions.
“Why is the sky blue?” should be “How do we see the sky as blue?” and “How is blue light being emitted by the air molecules?” etc…
“Why do I feel murder is wrong?” should be “How do moral feelings of right and wrong arise in a brain?” or “How did those particular brain ‘circuits’ develop?”
So really, science can (in principle) get to the answer of any “why” question if you first break it down into the appropriate how questions.
I wrote most of this comment off the top of my head based on the memory of the Peter Atkins quote. So I am curious, can anyone think of a “why” question that can’t be broken down into “how” questions? Of course this exercise must assume no supernatural causes.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Man, this is one of those arguments that makes me want to just sigh at all the philosophy majors (I can only hope that they are the only ones still so enamored by their own masturbatory logical solipsisms that they truly believe that every thought they have is relevant to every discussion, regardless of physical reality).
Philosophy is nothing more than the ability to define every term in an arguement such that you can prove any position you wish to be the correct one.
Hasn’t been useful since before Bacon.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Phil -
You might want to have the C2C webmaster update your profile. It still has you working at Sonoma State.
- Jack
December 29th, 2007 at 6:37 am
BA writes:
[[And that individual variance is the summation of their brain structure, experience, and personal attributes… all of which lead to why they make the choice whether or not to commit self-sacrifice.
As I said, the more you learn about “how”, the more you learn about “why”. That’s what science does.]]
Maybe I was unclear in the point I was trying to make. Given that altruism was programmed into us (although I, for one, am very dubious about sociobiology), knowing that would not prove that it was right to obey that instinct. That is a question science can’t answer.
Science can tell us where the instinct comes from.
Science cannot tell us whether it’s right to obey the instinct.
I have an instinct to have sex, and it leads me to want to have it with a lot of the women I meet and some of the guys. That doesn’t mean I should give that instinct free reign. I have an instinct to self-preservation and an instinct toward altruism, but it isn’t science that tells me when I should suppress one and encourage the other.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Lance writes:
[[I would love to hear your tortuous explanation of how a being that we should call our “Father” could simultaneously love us and burn us in a lake of fire, for eternity no less, for the unpardonable offense of not believing that he came down to earth two thousand years ago to get hung on a big stick so his blood could expunge the “original sin” that we inherited from the first humans that ate a piece of “forbidden” fruit.]]
Have you ever met someone who pursued their self-interest at all costs, Lance, no matter how many people they had to run over to do it? If you have — and I have, I used to study multiple murderers — then you know that such people are consumed by an urge to dominate, to control others. You see it in wife abusers and child abusers, the urge to completely control another person, to turn them into, at best, a tool.
In Hell they will no longer be able to do that. And that prohibition will feel to them like eternal, fiery torment. They will rail forever about how cruel God is for not letting them go on torturing others.
In the end, I believe everybody gets what they want. Given the choice between following God and following self, some will choose self. They will be given what they want. And they will find that that is Hell.
I’m not particular about the flames. The Bible uses a lot of symbolic language (and yes, they knew it was symbolic when it was written). But as a symbol of torment, flames convey the idea very well right away. Jesus knew what he was doing when he used that image.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[Barton, (with apologies for any offense) has proven once again the irrationality of faith.]]
Where, precisely, was I irrational, Michael? Please identify the logical fallacies I committed.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Penny writes:
[[Religion is based on fear of death.]]
Then how do you explain the fact that early Judaism didn’t believe in an afterlife (see Psalms 6 and 88)? Or the fact that, in Buddhism, the wheel of reincarnation is viewed as a terror and the ultimate goal is to get off the wheel, stop being reincarnated, and extinguish one’s self altogether? (”Nirvana” comes from a Sanskrit word meaning what happens to a candle flame when it is snuffed out. The image is used 28 times in the Lotus Sutra alone.)
December 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Barton, I think the whole Theist – Atheist rant you expressed was a little irrational. I’m not sure who you are preaching to, or for what purpose. If it is just to get a reaction out of people, I don’t really think you are succeeding. If it is a “Divine Mission” to convert the lost, I don’t think you will win many converts here. I have stated earlier, many here (and I’m fairly new), have had their fill of religion. I’m not opposed to a belief in God, I just don’t think it is my place to:
A. Judge those that do not
B. Use this forum as a place to “evangelize” the godless atheists, or hopeless backslider
C. Try to force my beliefs upon others
December 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Barton Paul Levenson said:
“I have an instinct to self-preservation and an instinct toward altruism, but it isn’t science that tells me when I should suppress one and encourage the other.”
No science does not do that. Human nature, along with societal conditioning and consideration of the circumstances does that. We have many impulses, almost always below the threshold of consciousness, that pull us in different ways.
As an example, consider the mallard duck I once flushed off of her nest. She flew a short way, turned around and approached me, and when she got as close as she dared she began preening. What was happening is that she had two very strong impulses- to drive me away from her nest, and to escape harm herself. When both conflicting impulses were equally strong, she did what is called a displacement behavior- she groomed herself. Neither “science” nor religion told her she “should” do it; it was the the way her brain works.
We are not ducks, but the same principal applies. Our brains process impulses at an unconscious level. When those impulses become strong enough, we are conscious of them.
If you find an object of some value, do you keep it or try to return it to its owner? If most people try to return things, then we are all at less risk of permanent loss of valuable objects. But if you “cheat” you get a short term reward. What do you do? It depends on your conditioning, your experiences with loss, and a bunch of other things of which we are not even aware. What “should” you do? It depends on the outcome you want. Will you feel guilty for keeping the object? Many people wouldn’t. If you would, you are more likely to return it.
Religion has almost no net effect on how people act. Religious people still cheat on their spouses, still rob and murder, still do any other kind of destructive act. Religious fear provides one kind of hypothetical consequence to acting badly, but it appears not to be very effective.
As I said before, “should” only makes sense when there is a goal. It is not an absolute thing. “Should” I turn left? Depends on where I want to go.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I’m curious has anyone read The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler?
I’m not sure I accept all his premises, but it was an interesting read on this subject.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
1. The strawman argument in your first comment;
2. Given that there is no way to ascertain the objective truth of one religion over another, to base an absolute morality on one specific religion is a logical fallacy. You did not mention absolute morality explicitly, but it was there in your indiscriminate use of the word “should”.
Ba-da-boom!
December 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Kid Cool, I have read The Physics of Immortality. It is interesting, but is probably just science fiction. The idea of a god which doesn’t exist until the Big Crunch (omega point) is fascinating though even if it is just idle speculation.
Since writing that book it appears Tipler has converted to Christianity since his latest book The Physics of Christianity goes completely overboard from interesting Sci Fi to complete lunacy.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
OsakaGuy,
I didn’t know about his Physics of Christianity. Since I am not a Christian, I doubt that I have an interest in this book.
I thought that once it was shown that the Universe won’t end in a big crunch that pretty much killed his Omega Point theory.
I did like his discussion of multiple histories and the good / evil debate.
kid cool
December 31st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Michael Lonergan writes:
[[I think the whole Theist - Atheist rant you expressed was a little irrational.]]
Again, what logical fallacies did I commit?
[[ I’m not sure who you are preaching to, or for what purpose. If it is just to get a reaction out of people, I don’t really think you are succeeding. If it is a “Divine Mission” to convert the lost, I don’t think you will win many converts here. ]]
Actually, it’s just a reaction to the spate of anti-Christian and anti-theist comments that follow any mention, however peripheral, of religion-related subjects here. My purpose in coming here, originally, was to comment on solar effects of global warming, though I had been lurking for a long time before that to enjoy debunking of pseudoscience.
I have never been fool enough to try to convert confirmed ideological atheists. In general I have to know someone fairly well before I’ll talk about Jesus with him or her. But of course when Jesus, his people, or theists in general are attacked, I’ll respond.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
BaldApe posts:
[[Religion has almost no net effect on how people act. ]]
A lot of sociologists would disagree with you.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
PK writes:
[[Given that there is no way to ascertain the objective truth of one religion over another, to base an absolute morality on one specific religion is a logical fallacy.]]
There is no formal logical fallacy of “basing an absolute morality on a religion whose objective truth can’t be proved.” Have you ever studied any formal logic? I was asking if my conclusions failed to follow from my premises, which is something you have yet to address.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I’d agree that Frank Tipler’s books tend to have more than the usual degree of flakiness. The common thread in it all, I think, is the desire to reduce spiritual/religious questions to something that can be described with math and physics. I think that’s kind of futile. It can be fun when done well, though — consider Richard Matheson’s “I Am Legend,” which was an exercise in ad hoc-ing vampires by explaining their traits in scientific terms. Somewhat more on the borderline are Larry Niven’s descriptions of laws of magic in his “Warlock” stories — e.g. mana as a non-renewable resource explaining why magic doesn’t exist any more.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I like what Alan Watts had to say on these matters, which is basically the material IS spiritual. All that is, whatever it is, is natural. There is no supernatural, but the natural itself is SUPER!