• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 13: Faith

#53: Sept. - Oct. 2008 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Dawkins v Burton

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: your comments here indicate the frustrating ambivalence about the status of knowledge in Burton's viewpoint. It seems frankly ridiculous to say there is not a complex reality that we can agree on, even though it is true that there are very many people who hold adamantly to falsehoods. The slipperiness here is not about the meaning of truth, rather it is the way people can elide and glide around a debate about the nature of objectivity. Richard Dawkins has an excellent comment on these issues in his book River out of Eden:
Robert, if you can, it would be best to obtain the book, as to some extent I am probably putting words into Burton's mouth. I don't think he used the phrase "complex reality," for example. What I meant by it is more like "worldview," I think, and yes, I think different worldviews, whether they are most influenced by religion or science, will always characterize the human race.

Burton attempts to stay away from philosophy, so he is not concerned with the status of knowledge. He tries to make his whole argument rest on how the brain works. It is from his belief that our brains incline us to find out the meaning and purpose of our lives, that he comes to his stance that there will inevitably be a great variety of expressions of the sense of meaning and purpose. Richard Dawkins is also an example of this variety. If some religious beliefs are unscientific, there is no harm. (He says, regarding how we treat others' religious beliefs, "Above all, do no harm".) And if a scientific worldview might lead to a view of the universe as random and meaningless, then it is no wonder that many take refuge in unscientific beliefs.

Richard Dawkins, and others, have made it their mission to crusade against "falsehoods", as you call them. That leaves me a little cold, but it is certainly thier right to do so.

Burton advocates admitting our uncertainty. He says there is a difference between absolute and "99.99% certainty." Since the findings of science are provisional, we are never absolutely certain and should say, for example, "I believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

I can't help thinking you have a slightly skewed view of what Burton is trying to say in the book. Empirical testing, for example, is not something he throws in to "weasel out" of an all-knowledge-is-relative view. It is the important factor that separates claims that rest only on a personal "feeling of knowing", from those that have been substantiated. He is promoting rationalism and science when he describes this. It is just that science is not all the world for him, in sharp contrast to someone like Dawkins.
DWill
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Dissident Heart wrote: I think the important distinction missed by both Dawkins and his anthropologist colleague is NOT the tools and methods that measure the distance and width of the moon. But, instead, what does the moon mean, its significance, place and purpose in the overall narrative that envelopes and mobilizes each community.
Dawkins does not consider these ways in which his fetishized methodology has little to say in the matter:
Although I put myself on the scientific/rationalist end of the continuum, I accept that there are other dimensions to
knowing or understanding that may not be covered within the scientific paradigm. There are other uses to which the materials of our world can be put; and just as you say, what makes a big, crucial difference is the function of those materials for individuals or for a community. For this reason, it doesn't make sense to me--is not even logical--for a belief or understanding to be invalidated solely because science has disproven some part of it. I don't even understand why anyone would think he needs to be the arbiter of "truth" between two visions. I know someone might object to this statement by saying, "No, science is more than a vision; it is substantiated fact." But although science does consist of statements in the process of being substantiated, the adoption of a scientific worldview is something different and does deserve to be called a vision.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

Dissident Heart wrote:I think the important distinction missed by both Dawkins and his anthropologist colleague is NOT the tools and methods that measure the distance and width of the moon. But, instead, what does the moon mean, its significance, place and purpose in the overall narrative that envelopes and mobilizes each community.
Thanks DH, this discussion of the moon is a good path into the problem of certainty regarding complex topics. Do you really think the anthropologist missed your point? I probably didn't express myself very clearly before, but what I would like to say is that we need to consider scientific and mythic thinking together. Unless we consider the mythic meaning against a scientific framework, we are going back to a pre-modern belief system, and this is a dangerous and unproductive approach. Dawkins sees this and expresses an all-or-nothing polemic on behalf of knowledge against belief. I would rather say that the moon as a material object only acquires meaning in its use as a cultural symbol in a framework of belief. The problem is how to integrate 'moon as fact' and 'moon as value' into a coherent world view. I would rather that we start with a material understanding and build a spiritual understanding upon it, rather than seeing matter and spirit as incompatible alternatives.
Dawkins does not consider these ways in which his fetishized methodology has little to say in the matter:- One community keeps a substantial portion of its population locked away, never able to see the moon: they are subterranean workers forced to mine minerals for ruling tribal members...these miners who never see the moon are simply expendible slave labor to be worked to death, bodies disposed like garbage, kept alive with the most minimal of care. - One community stages a fabulous feast and celebration during the season of the "harvest moon": all the fruits of their summer toil in the fields have been harvested and a festival of distribution and sharing of food is participated by all the members...dances are performed for the moon, songs are sung to the moon, and poems recited, artworks displayed and ancient dramas performed for the moon - One community sacrifices huge amounts of its shared goods and accumulated wealth for the purpose of reaching the moon: they make it a budgetary priority to develop the technology and mission to send a few of their members to the surface of the moon...they accept that much will not be accomplished on the earth for the success of this mission...projects that could feed, house, clothe, and educate large portions of their population are abandoned for the greater cause of sending two or three to the moon...they are in contest with other communities and think that by reaching the moon first, they will attain superiority and domination.
This is a useful way to illustrate the spiritual emptiness of modernity, with its fetishism of the nation-state. Describing science as a fetish draws out the irrational emotional component of anger with which Dawkins rejects unscientific thought. The Wikipedia discussion of fetishism can usefully be applied to Dawkins' discussion of the moon, in that fetishising its material objectivity
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Dawkins v Burton

Unread post

DWill wrote: different worldviews, whether they are most influenced by religion or science, will always characterize the human race.
Fair enough, but I would still join Dawkins in campaigning in favour of world views that are based on reality, especially regarding a scientific approach to planetary evolution, while disagreeing with him about the limits of the real. Impossible views can only be justified as poetry, not as science.
If some religious beliefs are unscientific, there is no harm.
Would you include the Reaganesque view that Christianity is on a mission from God to bring on Armageddon in the Middle East?? And what about the way unscientific Catholic doctrine has created a haven for pedophiles? Or the blind hatred in some Muslim quarters towards modernity? Clearly unscientific religion is extremely dangerous.
Burton advocates admitting our uncertainty. He says there is a difference between absolute and "99.99% certainty." Since the findings of science are provisional, we are never absolutely certain and should say, for example, "I believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming."
Well, with the greatest of due respect, Burton is wrong. Evolution is absolutely 100% certain.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Dawkins v Burton

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: Fair enough, but I would still join Dawkins in campaigning in favour of world views that are based on reality, especially regarding a scientific approach to planetary evolution, while disagreeing with him about the limits of the real. Impossible views can only be justified as poetry, not as science.
It's the campaigning that tends to bother me, and the certainty of self-appointed experts such as Dawkins that their claims to reality are the right ones in all respects. Their claims about reality are incomplete if they think that science equals reality. Look, ignorance will always exist. I, also, can't help seeing denial of the evidence for evolution as ignorance, and I would fight to keep any teaching of "alternate theories " out of the schools. But let's not commit the error of demonizing others for what they do or don't believe. Diversity is much more than a matter of skin color or ethnic background. When I hear such vehemence expressed about what others wrongly believe, I see troublesome features of intellectuals cropping up.

I wonder what you mean by disagreeing with Dawkins about "the limits of the real."

Impossible views cannot be justified as science, you're right. In general, I think people don't make this claim for religious beliefs. Creation "science" is an obvious exception. Clearly, when creationists try to get into scientific debate, their arguments deserve to be shot down.
DWill wrote: If some religious beliefs are unscientific, there is no harm.
Robert Tulip wrote: Would you include the Reaganesque view that Christianity is on a mission from God to bring on Armageddon in the Middle East?? And what about the way unscientific Catholic doctrine has created a haven for pedophiles? Or the blind hatred in some Muslim quarters towards modernity? Clearly unscientific religion is extremely dangerous.
It can't be shown that it is any unscientific content that is responsible for the harm. The uses to which people put beliefs is a separate matter. You also have to take into account that for the great majority of those who say they hold one "unscientific" belief or another, their behavior shows no dangerous aberration. But now I'm getting into the by-now familiar, and tired, argument that has been going on in these forums forever, it seems.
DWill wrote:Burton advocates admitting our uncertainty. He says there is a difference between absolute and "99.99% certainty." Since the findings of science are provisional, we are never absolutely certain and should say, for example, "I believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming."
Robert Tulip wrote:Well, with the greatest of due respect, Burton is wrong. Evolution is absolutely 100% certain.
Robert, would you agree, though, that by the rules of science, Burton is correct? You see no reason to concede any ground whatsoever to your opponents, but must you not continue to regard evolution as not disproven?
DWill
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Robert: "Well, with the greatest of due respect, Burton is wrong. Evolution is absolutely 100% certain."

Unfortunately it's not. I believe it with absolute certainty, but that is my belief. You believe the same I see. The reality is, we must maintain that there is for example, one in a billion to the billionth power that there is a chance that we've missed something that will throw a wrench in the theoretical gears. If you can prove absolutely that we aren't merely avatars in the video game of advanced aliens, you'd reduce that fraction by a small amount, but it would still not be an absolute certainty.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

Interbane wrote:If you can prove absolutely that we aren't merely avatars in the video game of advanced aliens, you'd reduce that fraction by a small amount, but it would still not be an absolute certainty.
I know where you are coming from with the modern Cartesian myth of the deceiving demon and Hume's stupid idea that maybe the sun will not rise tomorrow. My point is that this 0.001% is a big enough crack to open up a modern nihilism in which we do not have faith in our senses. I would rather say, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed you can move mountains, but that faith should be in science not in superstition. Creationists have that superstitious faith which is why they have the courage of their convictions. Rationalists also need faith in the power of evidence. The stakes are too high to accept that maybe science is wrong.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: I would rather say, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed you can move mountains, but that faith should be in science not in superstition. Creationists have that superstitious faith which is why they have the courage of their convictions. Rationalists also need faith in the power of evidence. The stakes are too high to accept that maybe science is wrong.
It seems a bit odd to me to bring the language of religion into science. Does knowledge have to be understood as absolute knowledge anyway, in order to be useful to us? And maybe a good thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the research in science carries a certainty of way less than 99.99%. Any good scientist, I think, will accept that maybe his science is wrong. Remember also that the evolution/cosmology question is only one area of application for science.
DWill
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

DWill: "Does knowledge have to be understood as absolute knowledge anyway, in order to be useful to us?"


That's a good rhetorical question, and I agree with the answer.

Robert: "...Hume's stupid idea that maybe the sun will not rise tomorrow."

What's so stupid about that?

Robert: "...that faith should be in science not in superstition."

I had a debate a few years ago on this forum with MadArchitect about faith. After many pages, we agreed that there should be a distinction with regards to defining faith. There is "simple faith", which is our faith in our senses, and faith in those things that are almost utter certainties(the sun will come up tomorrow). Simple faith should be had at all times to avoid entering that endless deconstructionist nihilism.

Then there's "complex faith", which is a faith in an ideology, theology, person, etc. In this sense, faith alone is useless. A foundation of reasoning, evidence, facts, etc. must first be built. Since this foundation alone lacks absolute certainty, faith is the glue that we have to hold it together. The whole that is created allows us to trust, and allows us to have confidence.

If there are foundational gaps too large, or there isn't enough of a foundation, faith is again useless. I see a gaping chasm in religion, but since the central tenet of religion is faith, it's pushed down peoples throats so mush that they build a bridge with it to span the chasm.

Robert: "The stakes are too high to accept that maybe science is wrong."

Are you assuming a dichotomy, where science is either right or wrong? Perhaps some of the conclusions we arrive at via the scientific method may be wrong, but the fact that we have advanced technology says that at the very least, the scientific method is successful at coming within close proximity to the truth by eliminating what is false. The truth of science could be thought of as being on a sliding scale rather than simply a dichotomy. I'll add that I think it's bumping elbows with the truth end of that scale based on its results.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

DWill wrote:Does knowledge have to be understood as absolute knowledge anyway, in order to be useful to us? And maybe a good thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the research in science carries a certainty of way less than 99.99%. Any good scientist, I think, will accept that maybe his science is wrong. Remember also that the evolution/cosmology question is only one area of application for science. DWill
Yes, much is uncertain, as Burton shows, but that is no reason to doubt the certainty of things that are certain, eg the basics of evolution and celestial mechanics. My point is that we should build a foundation for thought upon the certainties which have been discovered by our amazing modern minds. Leaving open a sophistical chink of doubt may seem logical but it gives a moral room to believers in superstition which I feel is unwarranted.
It seems a bit odd to me to bring the language of religion into science.
The mustard seed faith line is from Matthew 17:20. What I am advocating is an evolution of scientific thought away from total skepticism towards a recognition that science connects us to the absolute. I am deliberately merging the mythic ideas of science and religion here to present an integrated worldview, because the rejection of religious language by scientists seems to be a significant factor in public indifference towards scientific knowledge. A bit of well based fervour doesn't necessarily go astray. Another great line from JC is from John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener." The way I interpret this in scientific terms is that Christ is like an artery connecting human existence to absolute truth, ie to the nature of the universe. Jesus does not even need to exist for this line to be meaningful (although I think he does). It is about understanding the structure of the relation between human spirituality and the cosmos through the mythic identity of the Christ idea as an archetype of human perfection.
Post Reply

Return to “On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not - by Robert Burton”