Freedom from Belief - Religious and Scientific 'Truth'
77Liberating the Mind from Restrictive Thought Patterns
It is possible, desirable and liberating to dispense with belief. This is not a new thesis. Bertrand Russell, one of the most quotable of philosophers, said "I do not believe in belief". That is the attitude of an enquiring mind, an attitude that leads to discovery and advancement.
What is Belief?
When Russell said "I do not believe in belief" (in his book 'Why I am not a Christian') he was referring to this common definition of belief: accepting as fact something which cannot be proven. He illustrated this by saying - no-one speaks of believing two plus two make four, because it is not in question. We only speak of belief where there is doubt, where there is no proof. Thus, a Christian may believe in the virgin birth, but he knows when he has a boil on his nose. In other words, the virgin birth is an open question which he chooses to close by belief, while the boil is an observable fact. Russell's contention is that it is simply unnecessary to close the open question. The story will not go away, but closing the question is irrational and limits both debate and growth.
Russell & Bishop Berkeley
Russell also acknowledged that there was simply no answer to Bishop Berkeley's 'Idealism'. Roughly stated, Berkeley had proposed (not for the first time; the idea had currency in ancient Greece) that there was no such thing as matter, that everything is an idea in the mind of the beholder. The problem with this, as Russell pointed out, is that while it is logically irrefutable, it is also a blind alley. It's going nowhere. In his critique of Berkeley's idealism, he seems almost to have anticipated the work of Karl Popper and, given Russell's formidable intellect, it is quite surprising that he didn't make that leap, but more of that later.
Russell & David Hume
Where Russell did run into problems was with David Hume's Problem of Induction. Since the time of Francis Bacon, induction had been held to be the heart of Scientific method. The idea is that if experiments repeatedly give the same result, the hypothesis under test can be claimed 'proven'. Thus, from Bacon's time, scientific knowledge was believed to have been established as true. Hume killed that notion by stating that just because the sun has risen every day until now, that does not prove that it will rise tomorrow. This effectively destroys induction, or more accurately 'proof by induction', and puts nothing in its place but uncertainty.
Russell (together with Whitehead) was the mathematician who unified Mathematics and Logic (this remains his greatest achievement). It is therefore not surprising that he did not like Hume's overturning of the status of Scientific 'truth', but he could neither deny nor refute it.
Russell - Quick Recap
Russell showed that belief without proof is unjustified. It may answer a psychological need, but it is better to overcome this and simply leave the questions open. He would have liked to establish Scientific knowledge as truth, but was unable to do so, having no answer to Hume's Problem of Induction.
Karl Popper
Popper was the 20th Century's greatest philosopher of Science. He solved Hume's Problem, not by showing that Induction works after all, but by showing that it had always been a red herring. How exactly did he do that?
Popper & Falsifiability
According to Popper, any scientific theory has an uncountable number of inevitable consequences. I.e. if the theory is true, this, this and this must happen. Therefore if 'this' doesn't happen, the theory must be false. A theory cannot be proven true, because it is impossible to test every single predicted outcome everywhere and for all time. Thus Popper shifted the onus from proof (which is impossible) to falsification. By this system, Scientific knowledge is 'that which has peen postulated, tested and not yet falsified'. Clearly, there is no room for belief with this ethos. Either we know something is false, or we don't. It is irrational to believe a theory true - it's only our best guess yet!
Popper & Demarcation
Having established falsification as Scientific method, Popper further proposed his Criterion of Demarcation between Science and non-Science. To qualify as Science, a theory must be falsifiable, i.e. it must make testable predictions, any one of which kills the parent theory if proven false. By this Criterion, the huge class of non-Science includes religion, politics and a plethora of pseudosciences. He did not equate non-Science with nonsense, and he acknowledged the worth of many non-Scientific fields, but he strongly challenged false claims to Scientific status from such quarters.
How does this help us?
First, I make no apology for citing these great thinkers. They are among the leaders of Western thought in recent times. What they have done, collectively and progressively, is free us from the tyranny of belief, if we only take the trouble to understand them. They have shown us:
- nothing can be proven true (except in tautological fields like arithmetic)
- belief is an unjustifiable psychological 'need'
- knowledge progresses by logical refutation
- scientific knowledge is our best guess yet
Social spin offs from these principles are:
- it is not wise to legislate based on religion (any religion)
- it is not fair to confuse children by giving equal weight to religious and scientific knowledge
At least, that's what I believe!!
Thank you for reading.
Works by Popper
|
Popper Selections
Price: $23.14
List Price: $37.50 |
|
Unended Quest (Routledge Classics)
Price: $83.11
List Price: $99.95 |
|
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)
Price: $13.85
List Price: $21.95 |
|
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics)
Price: $11.00
List Price: $19.95 |
|
The Poverty of Historicism (Routledge Classics)
Price: $12.86
List Price: $19.95 |
|
Popper's Open Society After Fifty Years: The Continuing Relevance of Karl Popper
Price: $21.00
List Price: $38.95 |
|
The Open Society and Its Enemies (Routledge Classics) (Vol 2)
Price: $59.99
List Price: $120.00 |
|
Karl Popper: A Critical Appraisal
Price: $95.57
List Price: $115.00 |
Postscript on Popper
I had intended to close with these social spin-offs, but have decided to add a little more detail about Karl Popper, who deserves to be better known than he his.
Before Popper, Science was thought to proceed by empiricism - observation, measurement and analysis. The implication, almost, was that scientific grafting would yield understanding of the world. (It doesn't!) But under Popper's model, the hypothesis becomes the driving force. This should not be underestimated. Popper put the scientist, creativity and inspiration back in the driving seat. He also demonstrated that great scientists such as Newton had always been there - creating hypotheses. Creating, not deriving.
If you are interested in reading Popper, I would suggest starting with his autobiography 'Unended Quest'. In it, he summarises and contextualises all his major works, making it a very good introduction. If you prefer to plunge straight into his scientific philosophy 'Conjectures and Refutations' is the one I'd recommend. He also wrote some very influential political and social critiques, most notably 'The Open Society and its Enemies' containing, among other things, devastating criticisms of Marxism and totalitarianism.
And finally, Popper enthusiasts might also enjoy this light-hearted tribute to his life and work.
- Why Freedom from Religion Matters
Check out Pam Grundy's take on why the US must resist all attempts to circumvent the Constitutional disestablishment of religion and must adhere to the continued separation of Church from State.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thank you for writing. I fully agree to (especially) the social spin offs. Not only is belief the satisfaction of a psychological (or even social or emotional) need, it also is very personal and - in contrast to scientific knowledge - can be (most often is) ambiguous by nature.
Jim - I'm with you all the way. Karl Popper cut through so much crap. But in the confines of a hub, you can't argue all the niceties. You've heard of him. Most people haven't.
Ananta - yes. What more is there to say? Thanks!
Hi Paraglider,
An introduction to Popper for people who have never heard of him is a truly valuable service.
For me personally though, a lot of what's interesting doesn't quite fit neatly into Popper's definition of what counts as truly scientific.
Murky waters I know, but so it goes.
Jim
Popper allowed for 'pre-science' (like psychology). He also allowed for statistics, where theories are not absolute. But the fact remains - he dismissed induction as irrelevant and replaced proof with disproof. Not a bad legacy.
GREAT Hub ParaGlider!! Thank you so much for sharing! Earth Angel Publishing was founded on the premise that encouraging people to "think" would lead to individual discovery - that leaving questions open is not such a scary place after all!! Namaste!! Taoist Blessings Always, Earth Angel!!
Thanks Earth Angel. I couldn't agree more - thinking is expansive; believing is constrictive.
I enjoy this hub very much as well as your shisha one. Thank you.
Thanks HD - sometimes spreading the word of reason seems a lost cause, but we have to keep trying.
I believe in energy. I call it "God" to make other people more comfortable with it. Energy exists, it is a proven fact. How it acts is up to speculation, but it is there, and is what runs this world and universe, so I believe in using the energy on the earth to your advantage.
And yes, religion is purely psychological. Many believe that religion is only for the weak, and I tend to agree in some respects. We all need something to believe in, or we will go insane. But on the other hand, when belief turns to fanatacism, it is because the mind is not strong enough to handle reality. In turning to the unknown to explain the known, we create a psychopathology from belief.
Well, you know, if it is a proven fact, it is the first ever. Truly, there are only undisproven hypotheses. Ultimately, 'energy' is a description that seems the best available (perhaps). But proven? Let's agree to differ :)
Semantics, even in science, can be amusing. The written word is only as meaningful as the reader perceives it to be. Am I to understand that if I say, after reading, studying and evaluating the available data, I “believe” the theory of evolution to be correct I place myself in the same category as the christian fundamentalist who believes Earth is only six thousand years old? If that is indeed the case I shall have to make every effort to expunge that concept of belief from my cognitive process!
Knowing and believing are clearly two different things but, given what you have put forth here everything is ultimately unprovable so knowledge is, philosophically, no more valid than belief. Practically speaking this is of course absurd on its face but, from a purely intellectual perspective they are one and the same.
By the way, I frequently make short forays into the future with my time machine so I often know beyond doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. Can you believe it?
Well, you put the theory (say evolution) forward in a testable way, test it, i.e. check if what it predicts genuinely occurs, and if it does, you have not disproved it. You can therefore continue to use it as your best model to date. If you want, you can believe it will never be disproven, but why bother? Just use it. Also, some disproven theories remain thoroughly useful. Newtonian Mechanics breaks down as you aproach the speed of light but is perfectly fine for Formula One racing.
Objective knowledge has been proposed in a testable (i.e. falsifiable) form and has (so far) survived every test. It is therefore on a different status than, say, belief in the virgin birth which is untestable.
If worried about sunrise, call me around midnight. I'm probably about 12 hours ahead of you in time zones. I'll tell you if it's still working!
From my hub that you read, you know that I am a God fearing Christian, but what's more important is that I chose to be a God fearing Christian. I experienced my own crisis of consciousness in my freshman year in college after the death of my dad. Through everything that's happened to me, I've come to believe that logic and faith can never coexist because as you have said, one deals with what can be proven and the other deals with the unseen. One fascinating thing to me is that even in the realm of science, there are theories and theories i.e. the big bang and the evolution of man, can't truly be proven or tested, but there are people who believe in these theories. The way I look at it, you're saying we can be free from having to believe in things because we can rest easy relying on the facts and figures that can be proven. There are many of us who do just that, but I also know that the reason anyone chooses or abstains from belief in anything is because of their own experiences. Good hub!
"proof" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose talented_ink.
Let me preface this comment by saying I am not attempting to put you in the category of religious fundamentalist.
There are mountains of facts, studied, verified and validated by thousands of highly intelligent and dedicated scientists, scholars and researchers, over centuries, following highly disciplined procedures, which “prove” to most thinking people that evolution is correct. The same qualifications apply to the fact that Earth is billions of years old rather than only six thousand. They also apply to many “theories” which are accepted by the vast majority of people as facts.
Creationism, on the other hand, is supported by no facts whatsoever and is sustained only by “faith”. That’s perfectly OK with me. I am completely content to let anyone believe whatever they like. I absolutely respect the right to worship as seen fit. What I will not accept is that their belief makes it their moral obligation to force me to believe the same. I would not ask anyone of any religion to abandon their faith because I do not share it. I would not demand that they cease all form of worship or denounce their faith because I happen to disagree with its premise. Why is it too much to request that the blindly faithful show the same courtesy to those of us who do not share their blindness?
Let no one dare tell me that my children or grandchildren must, by legislative mandate, be forced to give the same credence to myth as to scientific fact. I will never insist that the children of religious fundamentalists be forced to accept information that is contrary to their belief, regardless of the facts. For those who desire fundamentally religious education for their children there is an abundance of religious schools available and, in many cases, their facilities are far more adequate than the shameful public school system our corrupt government has forced upon us.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
As things stand, we would all be well advised to send our children to survival schools. They will doubtless need the skills in the wasteland we are leaving them.
to ColdWarBaby - Free will has always been our greatest gift and I for one will never attempt to bend one's free will to match my beliefs. While I can agree that my belief in God and creationism is heavily rooted in faith, I am curious as to how you figure evolution can be proven to be true. This isn't a coy attempt at a heated argument either. I am just genuinely interested to know how this can be proven by scientific minds. I came to this hub because Paraglider read this one of mine...
http://hubpages.com/hub/Arent-we-supposed-to-be-fi
As he stated, people who share my faith were called to be fishers of men, and not hunters of men like so many have unfortunately become. I am curious to know your open minded opinion about this as well.
talented_ink, I am not prepared to provide you with a comprehensive course in evolutionary science.
I’m a high school dropout. I went to Sunday school and bible studies as a child when I was left in the care of my grandparents during the summer months of my grade school years.
I am largely self-educated. Do the same thing I have done. Read, study, and seek information from different sources.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/faq/Youn
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/Education/origins/agescien
http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.
Weigh the validity of the information for yourself. If faith trumps fact then, hey, I sincerely wish you happiness and wellbeing on your chosen path.
I have selected my belief system and do not expect you to attempt to change it as I will not attempt to change yours. I have given you “evidence” that supports your point of view as well as that which supports my own. Please remember that I have done so at your request. I do not require you to return the favor.
Here’s a very modest starting point.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3814-dawn-of
All archaeological evidence leads to the conclusion that the first humans arose in Africa and spread over Earth from there.
One difference between science and theology is that scientists are willing to increase their knowledge and allow for changes brought out by new discoveries. The bible was composed by committee and changed over the centuries to suit the needs of the church.
You may find this of interest.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/b3.htm
I have read the bible and will be doing so again soon since it has been a very long time since I last did so. Have you read Origin of Species? Here’s the entire text.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles
I’ve thrown this together hurriedly and it’s just a tiny fraction of what is to be found online. Do what you will with it.
Talented_ink & CWB - I'm genuinely pleased that you find this hub a good place to discuss further. I've noticed recently that a 'considered' hub tends to attract considered comments and doesn't attract fanatical commentators, probably because most of them get bored and leave when asked to follow an argument for more than two lines!
Now, if you'll allow me, I think you are both reluctant to give up the idea of proof. I say both, because, Talented_ink, your challenge to Evolution is that it has not been proven true, and CWB, your position is that it has been, for all practical purposes. But the Popperian position is that no theory can be proven true, BUT, it can be put forward in testable format and can be tested for falsification. A testable teheory (like Evolution) that has not yet been falsified belongs to the body of Scientific knowledge that might be true. That is as much as can be asked of any theory, and that is why it is not necessary to go that extra mile and start believing in it. Just use it, as if it were true, until some day someone disproves it. I predict that day is not coming soon.
Religious knowledge is not put forward in a testable form, therefore its acceptance is purely on faith. As such, its status is different from Scientific Knowledge, and the difference is Popper's Criterion of Demarcation.
Let me mention acupuncture. There is evidence that acupuncture works (for certain conditions), even on racehorses that clearly don't self-heal by belief in the acupuncturist. But the traditional Chinese theory of how it works is without any foundation in physiology or anatomy. It cites 'energy flows' etc., that simply correspond to nothing measurable. But because it deals with the unmeasurable, it (the theory) is untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. It is every bit as unscientific as Phrenology or Astrology. Unfortunately, belief in the traditional theory of acupuncture is an impediment to formulating a scientific theory to explain observable clinical results. That, in miniature, is an example of how irrational belief or faith can work against progress, by closing questions that are better left open. There are many notorious examoles of this in history, Galileo's case being the most celebrated.
Paraglider, when I said this above, "One difference between science and theology is that scientists are willing to increase their knowledge and allow for changes brought about by new discoveries.” I intended it to imply that there are obvious limitations to the concept of proof. What is accepted as proven today may be found to be wrong tomorrow. The once accepted idea that the expansion of the universe is slowing comes to mind. As I've said before, taking things as far as possible, nothing can ever truly be proven. For me proven is just a convenient word to identify something I have accepted as true until I have adequate reason to change my mind. Your friend Popper is someone I've never read but, when I discovered existentialism in high school, I decided that reality and the proven facts thereof were subject to alteration without notice. So, I guess in a round about way, I incidentally came to conclusions similar to those of Mr. Popper without benefit of having made his acquaintance.
Since first reading this Hub I have made an effort to keep its message in mind. Alas, old habits die hard, not to mention the fact that most folks probably won’t be applying Popperian criteria to their reading or comments.
CWB - point taken, and yes, there is also the 'legal' concept of proof which is the one closest to common usage, where the word proof implies the extension "beyond reasonable doubt". But hasn't that had a hole blown through it by DNA testing! I am something of a campaigner for falsification which is why I jumped in again when Talented_ink used the 'there is no proof' argument and you countered it with 'yes there is (beyond reasonable doubt)', paraphrasing, of course. As you say, old habits die hard.
One of Popper's driving forces, by the way, was a conviction that philosophy should be useful and applicable to the real world. He was very opposed to Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy which he considered a blind alley - an academic hijacking of philosophy into pure linguistics, where meaning, not truth, was the highest aim.
I could pipe in long winded as I often am, but, why? The point is, in it's simplest form as I read Para's article and comments, totally reasonable. What is the point of closing the door on an unresolved issue. Allowing a question to remain open does not preclude belief in it as a theory, it just means that a mind is willing to accept, in humility, the possibility that mankind isn't always capable of knowing everything just yet, but that it wants something to hang its hopeful hat on for a time.
I think the real problem is that humanity likes boundaries as much as it likes to dash itself agains the confines of those it thinks it has. No boundaries is a scary idea; ask any parenting expert how well children without boundaries do. So, questions that can't be pinned down in concrete are better settled by faith than left open to scary possibility. Monsters are born in the imagination.
Hi Shadesbreath, and welcome. I agree entirely with your first paragraph. I agree also that boundaries are sometimes necessary. As a trivial example, all sport is played within a tightly defined rule-set, against/within which the game is played out.
But, {{So, questions that can't be pinned down in concrete are better settled by faith than left open to scary possibility. Monsters are born in the imagination.}}
What monsters are more monstrous than the creations of religios faith? Eternal damnation, "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched". If that is the product of faith, give me the open question every time. And the reason for these foul inventions is the deep guilty knowledge (or fear) that the constructs of faith are just that - constructs. So we'd better have something to frighten people with in case they ever find out that they don't have to believe. Give me no part of it.
Para, you grasped my second paragraph as exactly as I wrote it.
Good - you had me worried for a sec :)
I stumbled onto an intelligent discussion here. OMG now I feel so intimidated! This is wonderful, Paraglider, thank you for all of it, and thank you to all of the commentators too.
I studied Thomas Kuhn in graduate school. At that time Derrida and the philosophy of deconstruction was a big academic fad and there were all these little Eurotrash snots fresh out of the mill running around deconstructing everything. At first it was really exciting, and then it started to annoy everyone to death because it is, as you mention here about other schools of thought that started and ended at the same place, a blind alley. It goes nowhere. It's like, I don't know, viral philosophy.
I used to want to be a philosophy professor, but happily I washed out before I accomplished that and now I am actually happy sometimes. I like the joke about DesCartes ordering coffee and being asked if he wanted cream with that. He said, "I think not," and disappeared.
Brilliant hub. Thank you!
Brilliant hub. Popper is essentially a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the kernel of the "truth for now" belief. The reason we progress as human beings and how knowledge increases is by pushing the boundaries. As Captain Kirk always says "going to frontiers where no man has been before". Incidentally apart from time frames, creationism and evolution can co-exist. some of the DNA mapping being done in evolutionary circles indicate a common DNA ancestor. In fact bacteria have a good number of common DNA ancestors too.
It is dogma and unyielding Dogmatic belief where our problems tend to lie.
Thanks Pam - you're always a most welcome visitor! Popper's insistence on the usefulness of philosophy is one of his great attractions. Otherwise, you have:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.
(Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam).
Love the Descartes Joke - amazingly, I'd never heard it before.
Sixtyorso - Yes, he was a pragmatist, especially in his politics which were essentially non-revolutionary social democracy. However he was extremely expansive and imaginative in regard to hypothesis. E.g. If a theory is put forward and initially corroborated (but not proven of course!) by tests, then suddenly falsified by a test in a new frontier, what do you do? You don't shrink the hypothesis to exclude the difficult area (political pragmatism?). You encompass it in a wider and bolder hypothesis that is untroubled in that area. (E.g. relativity encompasses Newtonian Mechanics). Thanks for joining in :)
Yes, I've seen the DNA mapping studies. It's interesting. Also interesting how fundamentalists can always prove retrospectively that scripture can be interpreted such that 6000 years really means 11.5 million years. But why did they wait for the science to catch up if that 'interpretation' was always there?
Rilly? That IS amazing! How about this one then:
To do is to be. --Kierkegaarde.
To be is to do. --Sartre.
Do be do be do. --Sinatra
No, sorry - I heard that one in 1963 :-)
Oh Paraglider-- I love the elegance of your mind--I really do. This hub is so nicely cionceived and executed. I love the comments and your poem as well. Wish I could think of a pity philosophical nugget to leave here, but can't. I'll only say kudos and thumbs up:-)
Robie - Thank you very much, again :-)
Poor Wittgenstein. There is no meaning without truth.
And Shadesbreath, though monsters may be born in the imagination, yet so too are the heroes & heroines that slay them.
True enough ColdWarBaby, but in my opinion both belong on the fiction shelf.
Yes, I agree Shadesbreath. We have enough unimagined monsters in the real world without worrying about the fictitious ones.
Thank you, Paraglider, for this thought-provoking ... and refreshing ... Hub. Wish I could Thumbs Up twice. Looking forward to all the reading!
And now I have a bunch of philosophers to study.
Marian - thank you too. Have you read Russell's History of Western Philosophy? It's a great intro to the first 3,000 years, up to the start of the 20th Century. And, coming fron the Russell pen, it's beautifully written and very readable. My copy is so well worn the pages are faling out!
No, I have not. But I just looked it up on Amazon and found an intelligent, thorough review. Playing around in politics has awakened a keen interest in learning how thought systems come into being, and how they develop and thrive ... or not. This is going on my Must Read list. Many thanks!
My pleasure, and after Russell - Popper :)
Got it! Then Kuhn ...
(I enjoy a good reading list, I do.)
Nothing can be proven, but everything can be falsified. And yet... people's minds don't work that way.
In practical terms people either believe a proposition to be true or they believe it to be false. Very seldom will they admit to themselves that they don't know. When people tell me that they have an open mind about a proposition, this usually is code for: "I don't believe it's true, but I don't want to get into an argument."
Aya - My mind works that way. It's just a matter of deciding not to plunge into belief. And you know, some things have never been falsified, like the laws of thermodynamics. That's why they are still in place.
If a proposition is testable, test it. If it is not, it's usually better just to ignore it than to take sides on it.
I'm trying very hard to test it. The proposition is: Bow is really the one who is talking -- the words he writes come from him, not me. So, I leave the house, and my assistant Katie is left with him and a number of test questions that only he knows the answer to, and she doesn't. He takes her hand and spells out: "This is a stupid test."
Did we just prove that he can't talk, because he didn't answer the questions? Or did we prove that he can, because he's got a mind of his own and won't be manipulated?
Or have we proven nothing at all? In which case, I have to keep an open mind.
But how do you keep an open mind on whether your interlocutor has a mind or not?
I still have to go home and ask him what he wants for dinner! And believe me, he'll let me know if he's not satisfied.
Bow is your chimpanzee, yes? I think you're going to need a lot of patience!
Yes! A lot of patience.
Whether I agree or disagree.........Still a very well written hub. A1 in fact Paraglider.
2whldrv - Thank you for commenting. My only aim is to be clear. Readers are welcome to agree or disagree.
What a wonderful hub! Thanks!
Time was when I graduated from Ayn Rand to Plato, Bacon, Russell and Popper. But I find as I grow older that what they put forward was cerebral, leaving little room for the heart - just my take - I don't expect anyone else to feel the same :) For me, the lines between knowledge and belief have blurred and now I find increasingly, a tendency towards knowledge tempered by belief. I do admire the objective, rational thinkers of the world - I just find it impractical for me!
As always, a great, thought provoling hub - took me back to the idealistic days of my youth!
Thanks Shalini - and you know, idealism can survive well into middle age :)
It´s great to read your hubs and feel your Energy. Huge positive Energy I may add.
Thanks for sharing, thumbs up.
Yes, Paraglider, for the fortunate few - now would that be rational idealists or idealistic rationalists??? For those of us fallen from grace, that pinnacle of perfection is a long ways off!
I AM A BELIEVER IN GOD, BUT I DONT FOLLOW RELIGIONS. I BELIEVE THAT RELIGIONS WERE CREATED TO GAIN CONTROL. CHRISTIANITY WASN'T CREATED UNTIL AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, ALMOST EVERY RELIGION REFERS TO ALMOST THE SAME THINGS. RELIGIONS CAUSED WARS BECAUSE SOMEONE BELIEVED THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S RELIGION WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT WASN'T WHAT THEY THOUGHT. THE EARLIEST SETTLERS NOT ONLY BROUGHT DISEASE TO THOSE THEY CONQUERED BUT THEY ALSO FORCED THEIR RELIGIONS ON OTHERS.MANY ALSO BELIEVED THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY, BUT FEW KNOW THAT MANY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WEREN'T EVEN RELIGIOUS. I READ THE BIBLE AND I DONT SEE WHERE IT SAYS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY RELIGION. NEITHER HAVE I HEARD IT IN DESCRIPTIONS OF OTHER RELIGIONS. IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL. THE BIBLE IS A BOOK OF MORALS AND SO IS LIFE! I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO BELIVE IN WHAT THEY WANT TO BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY SHOULD BELIEVE IN. THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING YOURSELF! I ADMIRE YOU!
Funride - thanks again. You seem to be doing a smal tour of my hubs this morning. You're very welcome :)
Shalini - I'll stick with rationalist. Idealism is still associated with Bishop Berkeley's 'there is no matter' stance, which I think is untrue.
LuverGurl - Thanks for visiting and commenting. I'm not out to knock anyone's beliefs or religion, merely to point out that it is possible to live life with neither. No compulsion involved :)
Great hub Paraglider. This has to be read and re-read several times.
Never before have I heard of Popper. However I have read Bertrand Russel's book The Universe And Dr Einstein. At that time I understood much about relativity.
Thanks for the link which brought me here. :)
Thanks Quicksand - it's surprising that Popper isn't better known. I think the reason is that his clarity is too much for many people who prefer to cling to less than rational belief patterns.
loved it. v good summary of scientific philosophy from recent years and helped crystalise what i already believe (slight joke, but you know what i mean). these thinkers are re-creating the taoist notion of surrendering the ego, which has been around for thousands of years, and still holds true (!). it's so important, it's pretty much my life work. it gets deeper and deeper until clarity comes......(oh heck I know what I'm on about). How, though, to pass such useful understanding to the masses I wonder?
Einstein summed it up well when he said "no amount of experimentation can prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong."
Alex
Thanks for the read Alex. Einstein was correct (no surprise!) But it is amazing how badly the falsification principle and the Criterion of Demarcation are misunderstood. Or more often than not, simply not known about.
When I hooked up with my spiritual teacher, this was one of the principles, not to have beliefs. I always had an aversion to dogma but I had to deconstruct a few beliefs, not necessarily of a religious nature as my distaste for dogma took care of that.
This year particularly I've mused and mused and turned my brain inside out on the subject of rhyme and reason in the pursuit of some form of truth, my own truth that is.. Like Pam, I'm glad I didn't bother with the field of philosophy as I'd have wasted my money; I do pretty well on my own!
Truth appears to be a changing goal. Almost as if this was the intention anyway. Somehow, paradoxically, there feels a relief in knowing that nothing is a certainty. In the uncertainty is an enabling of creativity because nothing is a constant. We are always looking. It confirms that it is not the end result that matters, but the journey toward a goal. And because the goal posts change, we seek further goals so our journey is never complete.
In the future when time permits, I shall check out Popper.
I believed in a statement made by someone, probably a Yogi, to the effect that when a student is ready, the teacher will arrive.
First of all I need to go through this hub a few more times and try to fully understand everything including the remarks.
My thinking may in some way be affected I believe.
Thanks once more, Paraglider. :)
Jewels - that sound like an enlightened teacher. The aim is to approach truth, not to attain it. Or more exactly not to insist that you have attained it, because that is an illusion. Undisproven models are the limit of knowledge, and we should be ready to abandon a model that is shown to fail.
Quicksand - I am honoured that you take my page so seriously. Of course, my aim is to encourage people to read the original works by Russell and Popper, as my single page is a mere shadow. I always say that Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" is the best starting point in the field, but of course doesn't cover the paradigm shifts later in the 20th century.
Really interesting Hub, Paraglider. I am probably guilty of underestimating Popper. I will have to read a little more about him!
I am new to the hubs so I missed reading this with earlier people, so I'll add in my comments now. First of all, excellent hub. I don't believe religious people have any proof or claim to know that what they believe is correct. I have no belief at all in the bible because it uses itself to prove itself. I don't care which religion anyone follows, in my mind they are all as unbelievable as the next. I believe in what I can touch, see, hear, and even then I question if what I percieve is actually true. I love science but I am always leery of following it blindly. And with that I believe that science is better posed to answer questions about origins of species and creation of the universe than are religious dogma. To me the idea that a giant toroise holds up the universe is just as valid a belief as god in heaven marking down all our sins in some giant book. None of it makes sense to me and never will.
Ivan - religion is based on faith. It is untestable and so, also, irrefutable. But, logically, it is just another irrational pursuit, like golf, or sudoka. Let those do it, who want to. But let them not impose on others. There's nothing tangible in any of it.
I'm just new to hub as well--and think this discussion is worthy of continuation.
So, the greatest scientific discovery is that which has the scientists absolutely baffled as to disproving it? They don't have to "know it is" necessarily?
And, I just want to put this out here to see how it fits:
Truth is individual--based on experience. Belief requires dependence on something outside of us because we don't know. Faith is a worthwhile thing to have if you are in pursuit if truth.
To know absolutely is a creative force if void of doubt. Lack of truth creates doubt, which disables knowledge--leaving you a powerless believer.
Thanks!
Patrick - I don't really go along with your 'logic' here. Faith would seem to push rational inquiry into the sidelines. Not a good idea. But thanks for the contribution.
I think that depends on the object of faith. Faith in a savior, or faith in the self.
Faith in self stokes the fire of will--will to gather information, and the energy to put the pieces together.
A wise teacher inspired me to explore the nature of reality, and understand quantum physics--if I want to know God. This teacher presses his students to know the difference between a limited thought and an unlimited one.
And I'm beginning to understand the limitedness of the believer as opposed to someone who knows if something works or not. This is freedom.
Your hub is helping my understand of freedom, and getting me closer to being it.
Thanks.
OK, I see better where you are coming from. I would suggest that whenever you find faith suggesting an answer to an open question, you should be suspicious. It's better to keep the questions open than to pretend there is an answer.
Great Hub Paraglider. You know, I actually own a book that has several of Bertrand Russell's essays, including 'Why I Am Not A Christian.' I think he is probably my favorite philosopher.
I DO NOT BELIEVE EITHER. I KNOW WHAT I KNOW IS TRUTH .YOU WILL ALL SEE MY FORMULA TO THE TRUTH AND REALIZE IAM RIGHT
Good luck in your mission :)
Hi Para:
Well expressed "opinion."
There exist as many differing opinions as there are those who "opine."
For many millenia we humans have questioned. The answers open enigmatic fields of interest that require more study and challenge.
The more we think we know the greater becomes the realization that we, in fact, know little.
All a "seeker" can do is ingest massive amounts of "trivia," seperate the pieces and try to fit them together like a complicated jigsaw puzzle and hope that the result will be a "concept" which will be accepted or rejected.
Historically "thinkers" have propounded countless theories. The human imagination is limitless.
My point is that the human species exists as an unique, nascent, conscious life form that has, only progressed ("progressed" is questionable.) significantly in the past 100 years.
Contemporary "philosophers" may be interesting to read and certainly offer food-for-thought, but are just offering their personal opinions. Credible? Time has the answer for that query.
I have found prose that, to me, is wonderful to read, is meaningful and the wisdom it proffers, guides my life. If you havent read "Desiderata," please read it.
Qwark
My friend - Desiderata, if you are talking about what I think you are (Go placidly amid the noise and haste) is a 'prose poem' from the 1930's that was recycled in the early 70's under the lie of having been 'discovered in a 14th century chapel', which should have fooled nobody, but did, for a while.
It is OK, but not deep, not subtle, and very much a child of its time. So, just for fun, I applied it to the humble earthworm:
Go flaccidly amid the soil and waste,
consuming all, returning all to earth
with conscientious pride. Relinquish haste -
for slow processes you were given birth.
Nor envy those with legs and wings and eyes
whose dissipation brings but scant reward.
Your purity of passion yields a prize
they cannot fathom. Here below the sward
yours is the freedom to descend at will
far from the baleful gaze of sun and moon
where light itself is blind and all is still
save for your smooth insinuations. Soon
the superficial world will pass as dust
into your calm domain, as all things must.
Hello Para:
Yes that is the prose I had in mind.
Please explain why a "thought" has to be, your words: "subtle or deep" " to be meaningful? Why does it lose meaning by being a "child of its time?" I read the thoughts of ancients which are based on events of their times, yet are found to be interesting and valuable in content, centuries later.
I find the message "Desiderata" delivers, to be powerfully expressive and not influenced by bias or favor. It expresses a manner of life, thought and acceptance which, if all men could emulate, would create a humanity which could function in concert to ensure the viability of all life on this planet. Your application of it to the "humble earthworm," though well expressed, degrades, in my mind, a profound and insightful composition.
But then your and my "opinions" are of no greater or lesser value than those of any of us who comprise the membership of a simple, intellectually developing, semi-conscious animal species.
We can be compared to a flailing infant in the crib trying desperately to focus on it's surroundings but isn't physiologically or psychologically prepared for the task.
Qwark
Things don't have to be subtle or deep to be meaningful. I think perhaps I am jaded towards desiderata because of the way it was hyped in the 60s. It was never off the radio and the reading of it was horribly sentimental. This coupled with the untruth of its discovery in an ancient chapel wasn't an auspicious start! Hence my parody.
Whether or not we can be compared to a flailing infant in the crib is debatable. Of course you can say that, but the implication is that there is an intelligence somewhere that is, to us as developed thinking adults, as we are to that flailing infant. Of course we don't understand everything, but where's the evidence for an intelligence that understands more? We have a long way to go, but we've come a long way compared with other earth passengers, wouldn't you say?
Hello Para:
Having read and ingested the logic and reason portrayed in "Desiderata, what rational reader would care about the untruth of "its" discovery or let the "hype" corrupt the impact of the message? The writer was a thoughtful, intelligent "soul."
This, your comment, makes no sense to me: "...but the implication is that there is an intelligence somewhere that is, to us as developed thinking adults, as we are to that flailing infant." The syntax is incorrect.
There is no implication connoted when referrencing the "flailing infant" other than as it applies to we humans attempting to adjust and adapt to the uniqueness of the anomaly "consciousness."
I am not an atheist, agnostic, deist or a "believer" in supernatural intelligence/divinities.
I find this comment to be inane: "We have a long way to go, but we've come a long way compared with other earth passengers, wouldn't you say?" I would say "No." There are many extant life forms that have "succeeded." We are grasping at the first rung of the ladder of success.
We human animals are less than 4 million years old. Just because we are "unique" doesn't make us viable.
Consciousness may be the perpetrator of our eventual extinction.
Stephen Hawking said (paraphrase), that humanity is at far greater risk from itself than any threat from outer space.
yes, "We have a long way to go."
Qwark
soulsurfer says:
17 months ago
Hi Paraglider,
Karl Popper is one of my heroes, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Popper has his critics. See for example Thomas Kuhn and his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
I make no apology for bringing Kuhn into the debate! Scientists are human, and therefore not wholly rational. They suffer from all the usual human foibles, including ambition & egotism. I know from my own experience, for example, that peer reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals can be (how can I put this politely?) "economical with the truth".
See today's special edition of New Scientist on the topic of "What's wrong with reason?" for lots more fascinating reading on this vital issue - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg1992
Cheers,
Jim