Category Archives: philosophy

Supersense and the porpoises

Posted on by

Bernard Moitessier:

“I hear familiar whistlings and hurry out, as always when porpoises are around. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many at once. The water is white with their splashing, furrowed in all directions by the knives of their dorsal fins. There must be close to a hundred. I would like to shoot some film, but it is too dark; the shots would not turn out, and I have not film to waste. An hour ago they would have given me the most beautiful pictures of the trip, with the sun all around. A tight line of 25 porpoises swimming abreast goes from stern to stem on the starboard side, in three breaths, then the whole group veers right and rushes off at right angles, all the fins cutting the water together and in the same breath taken on the fly.
I watch, wonderstruck. More than ten times they repeat the same thing. Even if the sun were to return, I could not tear myself away from all this joy, all this life, to get out the [camera]. I have never seen such a perfect ballet. And each time, it is to the right that they rush off, whipping the sea white for thirty yards. They are obeying a precise command, that is for sure… They seem nervous…
Something pulls me, something pushes me. I look at the compass. Joshua is running downwind at 7 knots straight for Stewart Island, hidden in the stratus. The steady west wind had shifted around to the south without my realizing it… I drop the mizzen staysail, then trim the sheets and set the wind vane for a beat…
I go back on deck after just a few drags on my cigarette. There are as many porpoises as before. But now they play with Joshua, fanned out ahead, in single file alongside, with the very lithe, very gay movements I have always known. And then something wonderful happens: a big black and white porpoise jumps ten or twelve feet in the air in a fantastic somersault, with two complete rolls. And he lands flat, tail forward. Three times he does his double roll, bursting with tremendous joy, as if he were shouting to me and all the other porpoises: ‘The man understood that we were trying to tell him to sail to the right… you understood…. you understood… keep on like that, it’s all clear ahead!'”

~~~

Bruce Hood (Supersense):

“Every religion has a supernatural component, but not all supernaturalism is religious. I could be an atheist and still think I have abilities that go beyond nature but without the need to believe in God. This is important because while all religions come from culture, that is not true for all supernatural beliefs.”

“…our intuitions from an early age provide a fertile soil for creationism, whether we stumble on it ourselves or are led to it through religious doctrines. These include:

  1. There are no random events or patterns in the world.
  2. Things are caused by intention.
  3. Complexity cannot happen spontaneously but must be a product of someone’s plan to design them for a purpose.
  4. All living things are essentially different because of some invisible property inside them.”

“We all know what it is to be irrational. Humans are destined to make mistakes of rationality. This irrationality reflects supernatural assumptions that appeal to patterns, forces, and energies categorically denied by science. We don’t have our rational radar on all the time. Sometimes our behaviour and decisions are based on inferring the presence of things that science tells us do not exist. That’s because the idea of there being something more to reality is such a common ingredient in so much of our human behaviour, irrespective of whether we are religious or not.”

~~~

Robin Knox-Johnston:

“The sea and ships are great levellers… I am always amazed when looking over the Victory in Portsmouth that a thousand men could be jammed into that small space for years at a time. A harsh discipline (to our modern eyes), teamwork, self-reliance, trust in their officers and each other, formed the pattern of their lives, but they were also brought face to face with the colossal natural forces that one meets at sea. Their whole existence depended upon their ability to come to terms with the wind and sea, and to use these forces to drive their ship.

It is not surprising that most of them thought more than their counterparts ashore about the cause of these forces, and not in the least surprising to me that so many were strongly superstitious or developed unshakeable religious beliefs, and sometimes both. I have found myself thinking deeply on the matter when out in rough weather in a small boat. It is all very well for someone sitting in an office to explain logically how the waves can build up before the wind, for we have discovered the natural laws that control this, but to a seaman, the explanation of these laws does not always seem to be sufficient. However practical you like to think you are, the feeling comes that there is more to it all than just natural laws, and if you have been brought up in a society that bases its philosophy upon the existence of a Superior Being, you come to consider that this Being is responsible, and to accept that he exists…
On my own in Suhaili, dealing with the elements in a straightforward manner and with only the basic rules of the sea to go by, things appeared in a far less complicated light than they do when surrounded by the diversions of civilization. The answers I came up with then seemed both simple and honest. I stored them for future reference in the private corners of my mind; right or wrong they will always be there.”

~~~

From Psalm 107:
” 23 Others went out on the sea in ships;
they were merchants on the mighty waters.

24 They saw the works of the LORD,
his wonderful deeds in the deep.

25 For he spoke and stirred up a tempest
that lifted high the waves.

26 They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths;
in their peril their courage melted away.

27 They reeled and staggered like drunken men;
they were at their wits’ end.

28 Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble,
and he brought them out of their distress.

29 He stilled the storm to a whisper;
the waves of the sea were hushed.

30 They were glad when it grew calm,
and he guided them to their desired haven.

31 Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love
and his wonderful deeds for men.

32 Let them exalt him in the assembly of the people
and praise him in the council of the elders.”

READING GROUPThe Victory of Reason (Stark) 1.i

Posted on by

As mentioned earlier, I plan to run a ‘reading group’ looking at interesting books on a weekly basis. I’ll normally post on a Thursday morning, as that is when I can normally guarantee some quality time to look at it. We being with Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” – How Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and western success.

Preface & Chapter 1.i

The main burden of this section is about the way that Christian theology was the necessary precondition for the rise of science – that, in fact, science cannot proceed without using Christian theological assumptions. Stark writes:

“…the West is said to have surged ahead precisely as it overcame religious barriers to progress, especially those impeding science. Nonsense. The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.”

Stark begins chapter 1 by outlining his conception of theology which, in contrast to its popular image, is ‘highly rational – formal reasoning about God’. This rational emphasis included the ability to develop new doctrine on the basis of such reasoning, and Stark gives the examples of Augustine rejecting astrology, and the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity. In the Christian outlook, therefore, the use of reason was encouraged, enabled, and allowed to be fruitful – it was seen as an indispensable component of faith. Whilst Stark acknowledges some difference of view amongst theologians (eg Bonaventure) he comments that “[their] views did not prevail – if for no other reason than because official church theology enjoyed a secure base in the many and growing universities, where reason ruled.”

Moreover, this view of reason was one that assumed the possibility of progress, ie that over time people could gain “an increasingly accurate understanding of God’s will”, and that “the assumption of progress… may be the most critical difference between Christianity and all other religions.”

This progress applied to the study of the natural world, which was seen as reflecting the nature of the Creator, and this is where Christianity is substantively essential for the establishment of science. The universe has a stable, rational, intelligible structure which reflects the nature of God and is open to our increasing comprehension – “This was the key to many intellectual undertakings, among them the rise of science.” Stark goes on, “Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable – the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars.” Stark goes on to briefly survey China, Greece and Islam, to explain why their differing religious perspective inhibited the development of science in those societies.

In short, science was developed in a Christian culture because only Christians believed, as a result of their theological insight, that science both could and should be done: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork…”

Some suggested questions to trigger discussion:

1. I believe it to be true that science depends upon a Christian theological framework, but I’m not convinced that Stark gives enough of an argument in favour. Do you find him convincing on this core point?

2. Stark doesn’t take any time to explain his conception of “reason”, which is central to his case in a number of different ways. Is this a major flaw?

3. Stark makes the curious argument that “The East lacks theologians because those who might otherwise take up such an intellectual pursuit reject its first premise: the existence of a conscious, all-powerful God.” I see this statement as both a) trivially true (ie by definition) and b) remarkably silly. Is Eastern thought as philosophically rich as Christian thought?

4. In an environment where the practice of science is under increasing cultural strain, one implication of Stark’s argument is that the preservation of science can most effectively be undertaken by Christians. Is this plausible?

5. Much media presentation depends upon the idea that science and religion are in inevitable conflict. If Stark is correct then this is a pernicious falsehood – where might it have come from, and whose interests are served by the propagation of this falsehood?

Feel free to answer these in the comments, or throw up anything else that strikes you.

A reading group

Posted on by

Over the last few months Stephen Law led a ‘group read’ of Dawkins’ God Delusion, which I think worked out fairly well, although I didn’t comment as much as I might have done as he was fairly restrictive in what he wanted to cover. I’m inclined to do something similar here, as I think there is a good crowd of people from all over the spectrum of belief and unbelief.

The book I’m going to begin with is Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason”. I’ll write a chapter summary at the beginning of each week and try and kick off some vigorous and fruitful discussion.

I’ll begin in January – which should give anyone who wants to join in time to get hold of the book.

Don Cupitt on a non-realist God

Posted on by

Can be listened to here.

(An excellent site by the way, for anyone interested in philosophy).

I once sat at Don Cupitt’s feet, listening to him give his spiel, which I was rather interested in at the time. As, in the course of the conversation, it became very clear that he had no understanding of the mystical tradition from the inside I lost interest in his point of view. Might be time for a reassessment.

NB my view on non-realism is the same as Wittgenstein’s: (paraphrase from memory) ‘one man is a convinced realist, another a convinced idealist, and each teaches his child to cross the road accordingly’.

Reasonable Atheism (31): the one less God fallacy

Posted on by

In ‘The God Delusion’, Dawkins writes: “I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.” (p77 of my copy)

This is a philosophical error, a category mistake. The Christian God is not the same sort of thing as the other gods listed (assuming the FSM counts as such). So it’s a little like having an orange in your pocket, and a man comes along and says ‘you haven’t got an apple in your pocket’. ‘No, I haven’t, nor would I claim to have’. Then you produce the orange and he says ‘see, no apple!’

Hmm.

One of the great breakthroughs in Hebrew theology, a transition – an evolution! – that is documented in the Old Testament, comes when the people of Israel, in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem c. 586BC, realise that the god they have been worshipping isn’t just the tribal God of Israel, which would be a god listable with all the others in Dawkins’ text. They see their God as being in charge of all things, creator of all things, not just the Israelites. This conceptual innovation led to an immense shift in their theology – a theology that can be tracked in Scripture in all sorts of different ways. It was responsible, for example, for the writing of Genesis chapter 1, which articulated this idea of God as the creator of all things.

So it would be fair to say that, since approximately the sixth century BC, the Judaeo-Christian tradition (and the Islamic offshoot) hasn’t believed in the sort of God that Dawkins lists. It’s a pity that Dawkins doesn’t take this into account in his diatribe, but that would take genuine intellectual curiosity.

NB please note that it is no defence of Dawkins’ argument to say that ‘the Christian God doesn’t exist either!’ (which is simply saying ‘you have no orange in your pocket’, a different claim to ‘you have no apple in your pocket’.). The point is simply about what Christians are believing in – and that isn’t what Dawkins is criticising. Hence the error.