Today I had a most interesting conversation about religion with my friend Tarun Runwal. He is a confessed agnostic, I am a militant atheist. When the two meet, you know who was defending god. Both of us were slightly drunk on Urban Asia’s excellent LIITs too.
A point that Tarun repeatedly made that I found both effective and exasperating was that of the first cause. It is not a novel argument in favour of deism, but I have never personally seen it used so doggedly. For the uninitiated, it goes like this – scientifically speaking, there was a beginning. Who/What caused it? If it is explained in the first degree, then the argument can be repeated to the n-th degree without losing any validity (at least superficially). If the n-th degree situation can’t be explained be explained rationally, then what right do we have to completely dismiss god from the equation? He/She/It could have caused it.
I would like to approach this by considering the nature of questions in general. A question is valid if it is answerable, at least to some extent. A chicken-egg question is not a valid question, IMO. If every possible answer of a question can be the subject of the original question, then the question is invalid. Some readers might liken this to a situation where some senior manager asks a junior guy something. The junior guy starts from an answer that is relevant in detail to his level of expertise. The senior fellow keeps on repeating the question, the junior keeps moving to a lesser and lesser detail in his answer. This happens till both are satisfied. This is a fairly familiar scenario (at least where I come from). If no answer of the junior would ever be high-level enough, then this exercise would never end and we are forced to conclude that the line of questioning is wrong in some way.
This is the nature of a scientific inquiry. We are trying to explain phenomenon at a suitably high level. We start with an empirical hypothesis and push it outwards based on observed or proven facts, and generalize it to the level our information allows us (no more – A junior who reported imaginary things to his manager would no doubt be fired soon). If, however, we see that no amount of data or analysis is going to explain a phenomenon, we should perceive that there is a problem with the statement of the phenomenon itself.
Religion these days finds its last stand in such reductio ad absurdum kind of questions. The theologians realize that there is no logical way to solve these, and house there gods in their shelter. My argument against these is that the universe is what it is. You cannot gainsay the nature of nature. The aim of science and reason is not to indulge in endless logical frivolities, but to reveal to us the underlying laws that govern nature. As Richard Feynman famously put it, it is like watching a game of chess, of which we can only see some parts at some times. Our understanding needs to be reverse engineered from these glimpses. That being said, there is only a certain level to which this understanding can be reduced or generalised (Just like there are only so many ways to explain the move of a pawn in chess). Beyond this, causality becomes meaningless. “Why moves the knight thus?” would have no meaning in chess. The same is true in physics.
Reductio ad absurdum is a useful technique, but it should be applied in context. This is why the anthropic principle is such a powerful and effective technique in physics – it allows us to separate the crap question from the relevant ones.
Infinite regression is the refuge of the morally and intellectually bankrupt. Anybody who wants to have meaningful philosophical discussion about anything should avoid it.
A point that Tarun repeatedly made that I found both effective and exasperating was that of the first cause. It is not a novel argument in favour of deism, but I have never personally seen it used so doggedly. For the uninitiated, it goes like this – scientifically speaking, there was a beginning. Who/What caused it? If it is explained in the first degree, then the argument can be repeated to the n-th degree without losing any validity (at least superficially). If the n-th degree situation can’t be explained be explained rationally, then what right do we have to completely dismiss god from the equation? He/She/It could have caused it.
I would like to approach this by considering the nature of questions in general. A question is valid if it is answerable, at least to some extent. A chicken-egg question is not a valid question, IMO. If every possible answer of a question can be the subject of the original question, then the question is invalid. Some readers might liken this to a situation where some senior manager asks a junior guy something. The junior guy starts from an answer that is relevant in detail to his level of expertise. The senior fellow keeps on repeating the question, the junior keeps moving to a lesser and lesser detail in his answer. This happens till both are satisfied. This is a fairly familiar scenario (at least where I come from). If no answer of the junior would ever be high-level enough, then this exercise would never end and we are forced to conclude that the line of questioning is wrong in some way.
This is the nature of a scientific inquiry. We are trying to explain phenomenon at a suitably high level. We start with an empirical hypothesis and push it outwards based on observed or proven facts, and generalize it to the level our information allows us (no more – A junior who reported imaginary things to his manager would no doubt be fired soon). If, however, we see that no amount of data or analysis is going to explain a phenomenon, we should perceive that there is a problem with the statement of the phenomenon itself.
Reductio ad absurdum is a useful technique, but it should be applied in context. This is why the anthropic principle is such a powerful and effective technique in physics – it allows us to separate the crap question from the relevant ones.
Infinite regression is the refuge of the morally and intellectually bankrupt. Anybody who wants to have meaningful philosophical discussion about anything should avoid it.
"[T]he morally and intellectually bankrupt, eh?
ReplyDeleteLOL!
You are a militant atheist!
Actually, reductio ad absurdum, coupled with the inconceivability of something arising from nothing (a corollary or an extension of the same argument) merely demonstrate the absurdity of denying the undeniable possibility of God's existence.
I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of it, which, incidentally, do not plague the conclusion that God must be, whatsoever.
And simply denying that there be any significance attached to the problem by appealing to the anthropic principle is not a particularly useful solution at all for those of us who do care about the imperatives of God. That the universe is suitable to the existence of conscious life is of little importance, really, outside the context of any given system of religious thought. But inside that context, particularly that of Judeo-Christianity, the matter becomes very significant, for then the mathematical probabilities suddenly obtain in a very meaningful and personal way.
Simply characterizing our concerns as crap because for you they are unimportant is an utterly subjective imposition upon an objectively universal and apparent issue; hence, your methodology is not particularly persuasive, except for those fellow travelers already predisposed to embrace your view.
In other words, insult in the place of reason does not impress.
Michael David Rawlings
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/
http://michaeldavidrawlings.blogspot.com/
@Michael - Stop me right now if I got this wrong, but it is your rational, considered opinion that God exists. Right?
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Actually, reductio ad absurdum, coupled with the inconceivability of something arising from nothing (a corollary or an extension of the same argument) merely demonstrate the absurdity of denying the undeniable possibility of God's existence."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then how do you apply the reductio ad absurdum argument to God's existence? What came before God? I hope God's existence isn't axiomatic in this discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"And simply denying that there be any significance attached to the problem by appealing to the anthropic principle is not a particularly useful solution at all for those of us who do care about the imperatives of God."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I really don't care what you "care about". You said it yourself - this is a "objectively universal and apparent issue", hence the argument does not bother itself with subjective opinions, neither yours not mine. I am not trying to solve a problem, but merely pointing out that an inherently unanswerable question is inadmissible in an argument-for or against religion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"That the universe is suitable to the existence of conscious life is of little importance, really, outside the context of any given system of religious thought. But inside that context, particularly that of Judeo-Christianity, the matter becomes very significant, for then the mathematical probabilities suddenly obtain in a very meaningful and personal way."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you want the logical constructs to fit your a-priori acceptance of this-or-that school of thought? Unfortunately, that's not how logic works.
What does it mean for probabilities to become meaningful and personal? That they suddenly start fitting your pre-ordained world-view? Please consider this - once you have "accepted" Judeo-Christianity or whatever, you arguments are no longer objective.
Just curious - What probabilities are you talking about which make sense after adopting religion?
You have made what sounds like a logical argument but really isn't. As far as something arising out of something, I say I don't know how - but at least I am humble enough to do so.