Re: science and religion, was Re: Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)

Davoud wrote:
> You both show an irrational disdain for religion. You come across as
> being very worried lest someone think that you have religious beliefs
> -- so much so that you bring to mind the extreme homophobes who end up
> being outed as gays. (Will we see Mr. Tung sneaking into a church in a
> blurry photo in the National Enquirer? Or a grainy photo of Mr.
> Peterson accidentally letting his crucifix show?)

You must think you're funny.

I must admit, I was concerned that someone might read "irrational" as
"insane," or "unhinged," or somehow abnormal. Of course, Chris means
nothing of the kind, and has clarified himself in the past. He means
it in its barest sense of "not rational, not deriving from reason."
As I said, I think that is literally accurate, but I think it is an
uncharitable way to characterize the belief (since the word has so many
unsavory connotations). How, exactly, does my pointing that out show
an irrational disdain for religion, Davoud?

In fact, if I did happen to be raised religiously, and encountered
someone characterizing my belief that way, the first thing I would do,
probably, would be to charge them with subconsciously hiding religious
beliefs. But likely, that's just me.

> You both come across
> as lacking objectivity and you, Mr. Peterson, do not display good
> manners.

You come across as jumping to conclusions, in an effort to appear
conscientious and accepting of alternate beliefs. However, since I
know from prior interactions that you really are conscientious and
accepting of alternate beliefs (except, perhaps, when they relate to
operating systems!), I must conclude that you jumped to your conclusion
in all innocence.

> Mr. Peterson's post is egregiously wrong. The core, bottom-line,
> only-thing-you-really-need-to-know tenet of Christianity is that people
> should be kind to each other, absolutely.

Either "absolutely" is normative in your sentence, and you mean the
Golden Rule, or else it's informative and you're giving a rather
diluted formulation of Christianity. I mean, how would that differ
from Confucianism (to pick an example)?

Let's face it, the Golden Rule, as admirable as it is, *is* a bit
irrational. It is perfectly rational to say to someone else, "Hey,
you hit my left cheek, cut it out." Or to run away, if the odds so
dictate. Or to fight back in self-defense. It doesn't make much
sense most of the time to say, "Go ahead, here's my right cheek." As
I say, admirable, yes, but rational, no.

This is getting a bit far afield, so let me try to rein it in a bit.
I'm often asked by visitors to public star parties what I get out of
doing amateur astronomy. Why do I do it?

Well, how can I respond to that? I say that I enjoy contemplating
the infinite, that there is a certain aesthetic in the random (but
not uniform) splaying of stars in the field of view, that there is
grandeur in seeing the birth and death of stars, that I see the order
of mathematical law in binary systems, that there is a beauty of the
absolute in the whiteness of the stars against the stark blackness
of the interstellar void.

But for all that I explain it, there must be many people who still
just don't get it--many more than those who do. The plain fact of the
matter is that I *can't* explain it, not beyond a certain point. In
order to share that point of view, you simply have to accept,
axiomatically, that there *is* that kind of beauty. If you don't--if
you see in the sky a mere pattern of light and dark (and let's face
it, in the barest sense, that is all there is)--then you won't share
my love of the night sky. Some other love, conceivably, but not mine.

That means that my love of the night sky is, at its root, intensely
irrational. I cannot explain it. I can't explain to my wife why I
will occasionally venture into the cold (such as it is in southern
California, of course!) to look at the tiny dots. She thinks I am a
little nuts, and it's true, I am. That just means that I am human.

Maybe now, you will see why, although "irrational" has many negative
connotations, I don't see the literal sense of the word as actually
*being* negative. It is not a liability of humans that we are
irrational--it is an asset. Even our greatest triumphs of rationality
would not have happened had it not been for the often irrational
behavior of genius. Who knows what drove Newton to create the
Principia? Somehow, I doubt it was a circumspect search for the
mathematical laws underlying nature. In everyday speak, we would say
that he was driven to find them. Certainly I think so.

I do think that Chris should qualify his words, since he *knows* that
they have these unlikable nuances. In my opinion, he is trying to be
too economical with them. But before you charge him with libelling
religion and its adherents, shouldn't you make sure that that is in
fact what he is doing? It may be that he really isn't saying as much
as it sounds like he is (since he is so cavalier with his words).

> Really? That is Bushian. Nixonian. (Isn't there a Usenet "law" that
> asserts that if a thread persists long enough, someone's tactics or
> beliefs will inevitably be compared to those of Nixon?)

You're probably thinking of Godwin's law, which states that as the
lifetime of a thread increases, the probability of a reference to
Hitler/Nazis approaches one asymptotically. (That's a hypergeekish way
of putting it, but you get the idea.)

> So lighten up. And be kind to others.

Right back at you. :)

--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: introducing faith/religion to kids
    ... sense of apologists) for religion. ... even know what my religious beliefs are. ... beliefs to your child and teaching your child to thinking ... Depends on the kid, and the situation. ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... espouses such beliefs, and even among those denominations, there are many ... Now you're using a variant of the "not a True Christian" argument. ... compared to science and some other systems. ... religion or some other system can. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: introducing faith/religion to kids
    ... It's quite clear that the FSM exists for the ... as a serious set of religious beliefs. ... But this only comes up w.r.t. religion, ... it never comes up about absolute certainity and ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: New A C Grayling book
    ... of whether or not religion is a useful ... without the need for many beliefs beyond the need just to do that. ... Golden Rule is very significant for them. ... interacting with cult members on usenet seems a much less onerous way ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: HATE CRIMES!
    ... the childish perspective of whether God watches ... Looking at religion from a child's perspective, ... WRT god beliefs, ... were created and instilled by the church. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)