Good points, Jim, and that's why I have always maintained that we should make a difference between different kinds of truths:
Truths about the physical phenomenal perceived world(which only scientific methodology can unravel in coherent and consistent ways) and Truths relating to the human condition beyond our physical existence: I mean truths relating to ethics, religious beliefs, beauty, meaning of life, etc.
These latter matters cannot be easily determined or forced upon others, on the basis of our scientific understandings alone.
This does not mean we shouldn't try to do that.
To repeat: I have always insisted respect for beliefs only in so far as they are non-hurtful and non-hateful.
God knows, or at least I know, there are many such propositions which people hold to be true.
Best!
V. V. Raman
September 2010
______
From: [
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:13 PM
To: V V Raman
Cc:
Subject: Re: Naturalism insufficient for spirituality and morality?
Friends
"Such coexistence wouldn’t be problematic were it not for the evangelical desire, so common to the human heart, to universalize one’s beliefs, what we might call the totalitarian temptation. We are not content to have our certainties – others must share them as well, since a plurality of worldviews raises doubts about our truth. The desire for ideological conformity is sometimes expressed in attempts to coerce belief and crush opposing views..."
Absolultely correct. However, in a curmudgeonly mode, I see the same sort of behaivor in a whole host of secular contexts too, such as environmental issues (esp pro and con climate change), political issues of all flavors, economic theories and on and on. Note that Lee Smolin makes the same observation about String Theorists. Alister McGrath makes the same observation regarding Dawkins and friends....A couple of observations: In all of these cases, whether religious cases or not, the proponent believes that his/her views are truth, have their careers or identities dependent on these positions, and, in many cases, believe that the question involved is seriously a matter of life and death for individuals or the planet, hence all that passion. Therefore the quest for truth in all of these instances has been supplanted by some sort of ideological purity as a condition of either respect or of being taken seriously. So far that has been an easy observation. However, there is a much more basic problem that gives us all a real conundrum: If one is engaged in any kind of research (science, history, theology, philosophy and any other kind) one begins with the assumption that the truth is out there and, eventually, will be discovered. If we say there is truth and is discoverable, then we are by definition saying that those who disagree are wrong. If we say that there is no truth, that all is relative or context-dependent then there is not much point in the research, in learning, or in debate and discussions. We might as well make it up as it suits us, and many do. So, are we trying to find out what is true or are we playing games? I admit that that is a tough question!
Jim
<"But the sense, powerfully articulated in both writers,
of the sacred, of the mystery and wonder of existence, of the power and
resonance of the moral ideals that call us to transcend ourselves, of the
supreme value of love and self-sacrifice - how much of this is really
independent of the liturgical and scriptural and sacramental culture which
nurtured them? And how much of it can be retained once that culture has been
dismantled?">
So let those of us who can retain part or whole of whatever we want in order to enrich our lives do so by dismantling the liturgical and scriptural and sacramental stuff, and let others (even if they are only Non-Brights) do it the way they want.
Why this antique eagerness to convert everyone in the world to our brand of religious approach?
This has the potential for as much hate, persecution, and fanaticism as became manifest in history with that mentality.
What we need to propagate is the idea that no matter what we believe in regarding these matters we need to have respect for other people's beliefs and a resolution not to harm, hurt, and hate others. These must be the fundamental ingredients of our worldviews.
I am not arguing against worldview conversions: they may as worthwhile as another mosque in Manhattan. I am wondering about the goal of the enterprise.
Moreover, I also feel that any hope to the effect that rational and scientific education will convert more than five billion people into a No-God congregation that will only sing hymns to quarks and galaxies and make them all reasonable and caring creatures who will stop reciting their sacred texts and observing the associated feasts and festivals may be naive or idealistic, even if it seems to be a worthwhile goal for some of us. Yes, this proselytism may win over a few thousand/million converts in due course, and to this extent it may be worthwhile, but even that is no guarantee that everyone who adopts this as a religion will necessarily adhere to humanistic and enlightened values. Just recall Stalin and his likes.
V. V. Raman
September 10, 2010
______
From: Stanley Klein [
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 3:35 AM
To: Tom Clark
Cc: Iras
Subject: Re: Naturalism insufficient for spirituality and morality?
What's this about us getting tired or running down???
Seems to me us primates are getting fancier and fancier.
Just look at iPhone, learning how to use alternative fuels, etc.
Is Cottingham really worried about 10 billion years in the future????
Us humans find it impossible to plan for 100 years ahead.
This is the New Year for many of us. With God's help we
will think through where we have missed the mark this past
year and do a better, more caring job this coming year. That
seems to be what God is asking of us. Why is Cottington
worrying about 2nd law of thermodynamics? We've got
way more important purposive things about which to interact
with God. I hope I'm forgiven all this God stuff, but it is
Rosh Hashana with wonderful music still in my head.
Stan
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Tom Clark <<mailto:> wrote:
My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but John Cottingham writes
an interesting review of Mark Johnston's Saving God and Andre
Comte-Sponville's The Book of Atheist Spirituality, see
. Cottingham argues that,
despite the hopes and claims of the two naturalist authors, there has to be
more than the natural world for genuine spirituality and morality to exist.
Morality requires a supernatural authoritative basis beyond human
convention, and because the universe as science describes it is "decaying,
gradually cooling, inevitably running down,"naturalists are simply not
entitled to such words as "sacred," "holy," "grace" and "gift."
He asks rhetorically "But the sense, powerfully articulated in both writers,
of the sacred, of the mystery and wonder of existence, of the power and
resonance of the moral ideals that call us to transcend ourselves, of the
supreme value of love and self-sacrifice - how much of this is really
independent of the liturgical and scriptural and sacramental culture which
nurtured them? And how much of it can be retained once that culture has been
dismantled?"
Religious naturalists would say quite a bit, although some of the language
would likely change in the absence of God (must we necessarily hold onto to
"holy" to count as spiritual?). But I think it would take some pretty fancy
footwork to convince Cottingham that RN is even a remote possibility. A good
rebuttal of his skeptical assessment would go a long way toward clarifying
what it is RNs believe, if indeed there's any consensus.
best,
Tom
Naturalism.Org
Thank you, Jerald, for clarifying some of my confusions.
Your proposals are certainly in harmony with the larger goals of RN.
So I wish them every success.
Thanks also to Michael for reaffirming the importance of, and value in, letting ideas in conflict play themselves out in the open arena and let them win converts or be laughed out of court, depending on their merits or lack thereof. That, no doubt, is how humanity has been progressing over the ages.
My intention was certainly not to arrest continuing debates and discussions of divergent perspectives on God and after-life which have always been matters of supreme interest to thinking humans, but to draw our interest and attention to some of the more practical problems facing our species: ranging from environmental threats, impending water/energy shortages to multicultural confrontations and interfaith hurdles.
Best!
V. V. Raman
September 4, 2010
______
From: jerald robertson [
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 9:26 PM
To: V V Raman
Cc: Pat Bennett; IRASNET
Subject: Re: RN as a 'godless' set of understandings?
I enjoyed reading your quick listing of reasons why one wants an RN instead of an N alone. - Thanks
I trust it will provoke further discussions here. - I hope so too as answering Pat was only part of my intent
Here are a couple of my thoughts on some of them:
1. It can compete with other religious beliefs on a religious basis, naturalism cannot.
As one who has never been enthusiastic about religion as a commodity to be sold to more people, and fears that <My religion is better than yours> has been the root of many unhappy confrontations in history, this notion of competing with other religions does not appeal to me.
Doesn’t need to appeal to you, just to those who wish to compare. Agreed about past confrontations but that’s going to continue to happen IMO until one believe wins out. We may be heading into the last great battle. I prefer the winner to be one of rational merit rather than an old one because they have not gotten the job done. As Einstein said you can not solve a problem using the same level of thinking that caused the problem. That applies here IMO. I’m all for doing better. I have noted that when I have referencing selling here, it doesn’t go down well with some. Ideas are sold just like other things and the competition can be fierce. I would think the academic community knows this well. IMO we are the fiercest competitor on this planet because of our advantages. And I would add that competition is the base rock of life, part of the narrative of RN, the Epic of Evolution. Or does the evolution of ideas stop now?
5. It can with a naturalistic god concept retain a god concept for those who still want/need one (naturalism does not). Can you elaborate on this? A naturalistic God concept? – Five years ago Gordon Kaufman got a standing ovation form the IRAS crowd (a majority of which were scientists) for suggesting a naturalistic concept of god. Others have and are doing the same. I come at it from a Spinoza direction – a pantheistic way, All is God. I will point out that if your concept is a good naturalistic one, you can then prove god exists. The super guys cannot do that.
9. Also I see nothing in naturalism that can logically promote a grand destiny for mankind and RN may be one up on traditional religions in this respect. And what in your view is humanity's grand destiny from a RN perspective? – OK so that’s my contribution. There is as you say nothing in naturalism that can logically promote a grand destiny for mankind. That where the religion part comes in. Afterlife and Heaven are futuristic. Religions have had a lock on the future because reason can only speculate. Well let’s start ‘modestly’ with survival. Then a survival with wellbeing for all. How about Heaven on Earth. The traditional religions have never promoting that happening. One up for RN.
10. A notion of transcendence. What would be the RN notion of transcendence? - Perhaps a naturalist’s trance (E O Wilson) most of us have had these, a kind of state of flow (Csíkszentmihályi< Maslow’s 6 and 7 levels of needs V V, wish to try your hand at it? I say it would be going beyond one’s usual level of awareness – trans-mergence and trans –imminence , merging with existence becoming one with it, sort of like being one with God.
How does this project (as a religious movement) differ from current versions of Unitarian-Universalism? – Don’t know. Would any UU wish to comment?
<. The issue of whether there’s something else besides Nature will remain, no?>
Do we all mean the same thing by Nature in all these discussions?
Does anyone have a clear definition of Nature to which all religious naturalists subscribe?
Do all physicists mean the same by this word?
Is a wave function part of Nature?
Is a Poisson-bracket Nature?
Do we mean by Nature anything and everything we observe, imagine, and can ever observe and imagine?
Just wondering aloud.
V. V. Raman
September 2010
______
From: Ursula Goodenough [
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 3:20 PM
To: Iras
Subject: Re: God did not create the universe, says Hawking
I believe it’s the case that when physics comes up with that, with convincing evidential support, then whatever-it-will-be-called will take its place as a feature of Nature. The issue of whether there’s something else besides Nature will remain, no?
______
From: Stanley Klein <>
Reply-To: Stanley Klein <>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 12:15:44 -0700
To: Ursula Goodenough <>
Cc: Iras <>
Subject: Re: God did not create the universe, says Hawking
Ursula,
The issue that concerns me isn't the language that one uses. It is the question of whether physics can come up with convincing theories of how an improved string theory (or whatever ti will be called) can account for the creation of our universe. That isn't really a matter of belief. It is a matter of mathematics and computer computation and such.
Stan
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Ursula Goodenough <> wrote:
On the assumption that persons on this list, at least, have no doubt that SOMETHING exists — that is, they don’t join the ranks of those who would hold that rocks, life, stars etc. are all some perceptual illusion — and if we call this something Nature, then the core issue, I would suggest, is whether one believes that there is something else BESIDES nature. Since this matter is not amenable to scientific inquiry, it becomes a matter of belief — some believe there is something else, some believe there isn’t, and some choose to take a pass on the question. Some who believe there is something else go on to have endless discussions about what that something else entails, where god language is often but not necessarily used in the conversations, and usually discover discrepancies in their views. The rest hold their beliefs to their chests.
______
From: Stanley Klein < < >
Reply-To: Stanley Klein < < >
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:50:14 -0700
To: Michael Cavanaugh < < >
Cc: Iras < < >
Subject: Re: God did not create the universe, says Hawking
HEAVENS NO! I never thought you'd think that God language would solve any problem. I had just read a very nice thing that you had written about tolerance in how people express things and have different definitions.
You said: "To me it is not a question of whether God exists -- there can be no doubt that SOMETHING exists, and the only thing in question is what to call it, which circles back nicely on our thread about words and thought."
I thought that was nice.
stan
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:26 AM, < < > wrote:
Stan, I appreciate your resonance with what I said, but I think you are dreaming if you thing that all getting on board with the word "God" would solve any problems. People will still fight over details of the god-descriptions as they have in the past.
If I thought you were correct factually I'd probably become a convert to your way of thinking on the god-language question. And I suppose we could have preserved the word "anvil" and just let it mean something else that had an etymological connection with the earlier usage. But my current feeling is that it is good we just let that word die, and I suspect there would be much LESS conflict in the world if we did the same thing with the word "god."
But as Barry says, that's
just me,
Michael
In a message dated 9/3/2010 9:48:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time, < writes:
What a wondrous thread that Hawking started. He likes to be inflammatory and sure succeed in lighting a fire with us. I resonate most with Michael's statement about 30-40 inches above. It all depends on what we mean by God. Let me give an example. Yesterday the July-August "Reports of the National Center for Science Education" arrived. On p. 14 of Genie Scott's story of how she became director of NCSE she said: "In my experience, evolution is more likely to be taught in Catholic schools than in public ones." It has become very clear to me that Catholics (or at least the Vatican) have figured out how God made all those animals. They accept that Heshe did it by Darwinian mechanisms. Similarly, the way God created the universe was to use precisely the mechanisms that Hawking is studying. If simple string theory (or whatever) can do it with minimal effort why should God do something a harder way.