Religion and Cosmos

[Intuition]

"Question everything" and "Think critically" have nothing in common, methodologically, with religious belief. I think showing how many people have compartmentalized science and religion--so they could think "scientifically" without it impacting their belief system about God--is about the "best" he can do with this. It may not be intellectually consistent, but for some scientists, it works.

To your first sentence, I think that's untrue, at least of a healthy religious belief, which does not have anything to do with stifling critical thinking or the questioning of everything.  If I felt that my religion was forcing me to leave my mind at the door in order to embrace its beliefs, I'd leave it.  Granted, historically organized religion has committed all these offenses but it doesn't have to be so and is not universally so.

To your second sentence, I think it is possible to be "intellectually consistent" and believe in God without denying science in any way.  It just would not be the same image of God as taught by certain mainstream religions, but still no less a God that one can believe in, unless one doesn't like believing in things one feels only with one's intuition and not their physical senses.  I think it would have to be a God that doesn't fiddle with creation but allows it to work according to its own laws.  It's entirely possible to take this rationale to the limit without denying science.  One doesn't have to believe that there ever wasn't a cosmos or that the cosmos was created by God from nothing in time in one singular event.  God could still be the existential ground of creation without having physically created it in the way a lot of religions believe.  That's a tough thought to wrap one's mind around and it can involve seeing the cosmos as part of God or the cosmos as God evolving into the perfection religions usually ascribe to him.  From the perspective of our finite point in time, it can look like there is no God because nothing's perfect from our point of view.  But if the cosmos evolves into God eventually, or we decide that the cosmos is perfection as it is, it kind of is true for all time anyway, even if it isn't happening until the future from our perspective.  There is a lot more to this line of thinking but I can't do it justice here so I think I'll leave it at that.  You may all call me crazy now if you want.

By the way, one thing I have realized from watching "Cosmos" is something I've known all along but never verbalized until now.  And that's that I look at the Cosmos to tell me what to believe about God, not vice versa.  As long as one takes that point of view I think they should be OK.  It's when one has a preconceived idea that God should be this way or that way that they aren't open to seeing God the way the cosmos teaches us he must have to be.  If science says there are no gaps in the scientific account, I have to take that seriously and not believe in miracles which violate the laws of the cosmos.  But that doesn't also mean I have to stop believing in God, in my opinion.  It just means that the God I will end up believing in will be nothing like the old tyrant with the white beard sitting on his throne that traditional Judeo-Christian religion taught.  In fact, it will be a very different conception of God.  But I've said enough.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Intuition

[Joystickenvy]

I think that's a very interesting view of god.

My issues with religion are not so much that one can't be logical and religious, but more that you can't always be both at the same time without breaking or ignoring the rules. Obviously, the more flexible the rules and beliefs of your religion are, the easier it is to avoid conflicts.

I don't think that's even a bad thing. There is room in life for illogical thoughts and actions. Where the problems come in are when certain holders of certain illogical beliefs insist that if the logic doesn't support their belief then the logic is wrong or the devil playing tricks, etc simply because they believe it.

[Kromm]

To your first sentence, I think that's untrue, at least of a healthy religious belief, which does not have anything to do with stifling critical thinking or the questioning of everything.  If I felt that my religion was forcing me to leave my mind at the door in order to embrace its beliefs, I'd leave it.  Granted, historically organized religion has committed all these offenses but it doesn't have to be so and is not universally so.

While that's certainly true, I think we keep sailing past the issue that the show is mainly talking about religion vs. science in a historical context.  It's putting a modern filter onto this, whereas Cosmos is talking about history.  Modern religion often encompasses multiculturalism and open critical thinking.  Historically that hasn't often been the case.  

I think there's rightful pride in belonging to a modern more open religion.  Then again, we also live in a world where the WBC exists, and "documentaries" have been made in the past few years about how the sun revolves around the Earth.

[Intuition]

Kromm, I think I have to keep reminding myself that some of the show takes aim at historical religion and any present forms that stifle rational and scientific thought but perhaps not other forms that are more open minded.  I can scarcely believe that article - I almost thought it was misprinted from "The Onion".  Kate Mulgrew was duped along with the scientists who appear in the film - she said it on her Facebook page.

That said, I couldn't fail to notice in this episode the mentioning of Democritus.  He was pretty much the first scientific materialist.  What it boils down to in terms of thought (as studying ancient philosophy often helps us do) is that materialists do not think of things in teleological terms, ascribing to them purpose or final cause but only of mechanistic cause in terms of natural laws.  According to them, only living things could be said to have purpose or intention.  Meanwhile Plato and others did not discount the final cause or purpose of natural events even if it had to be explained in terms of coming from outside the object.  For materialists, attributing final cause or purpose to natural events is to treat it like a living thing.  Well, interestingly, I've seen theoretical physicists now wonder whether the Cosmos is actually a living thing.  If so, even if they are materialists they might be willing to conceive of it having a purpose if they see it as a living being.  I've often thought this meshes well with some scientific materialists who embrace some form of Pantheism whereby the Cosmos itself is seen as divine.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Intuition

[Padma]

If I felt that my religion was forcing me to leave my mind at the door in order to embrace its beliefs, I'd leave it.

 

I can think of so many religions with so many beliefs that defy reason--require pure "belief" because scientific, rational scrutiny would make key doctrines fall apart. An interesting book is "The Jefferson Bible: What Thomas Jefferson Selected as the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" (Jefferson Bible plus good intro to it) where he edited the Gospel with the goal of leaving out anything supernatural or a-historical and reorganized it all chronologically as the biography of Jesus and his teachings. Really interesting (and heretical which is why he never published it in his lifetime, although he remained a theist and valued Jesus' teachings highly).

Jefferson was a rational, scientific man who tried to apply his knowledge of science and history to his faith. Even today, many Christians find what he did to be blasphemy. (And, being Jefferson, of course he didn't only edit it in English, he made parallel translations of his book in Latin, Greek, French and English).

Edited April 16, 2014 by Padma

[Rhetorica]

I guess I was fortunate to be raised Lutheran (NOT Missouri Synod) and complete the Catechism. 

We were taught to question everything in the Bible. I remember being very uncomfortable when someone raised the question about Mary remaining a virgin her whole life. The Pastor encouraged discussion and someone even said, "Well, maybe there was just some heavy petting." That was a real eye opener for a 12 year old! 

[Intuition]

I watched that show on the Jefferson Bible on the Smithsonian channel.  One more reason to like Jefferson (not that there aren't other reasons not to like him).

Rhetorica, I was raised Episcopalian and I too was taught to question everything in the Bible.  On top of that, I studied Theology at a Roman Catholic university, where I was taught theories of Bible interpretation that pretty much made it a morality lesson set in the guise of a historical narrative.  What there is of any factual historical value is not really known for sure.

Mainstream Christianity gets a bad rap from the fringe elements at the conservative end.  It's too bad that a lot of people don't realize that and still tend to think the RC church is the same as it was in earlier centuries on these matters.  Has anyone heard of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?  He was a French paleontologist and geologist in the 20th century who also happened to be a Jesuit.  He also took part in the discovery of Peking Man.  Now his philosophy was quit difficult to figure out, but the gist of it is entirely evolution based.  Of course, he did have a deep faith in God, but his philosophy is that of a scientist, and fascinating.  I have adopted some of his ideas in my own thought.  When I read theoretical physicists today I hear thoughts that I originally read in Teilhard, but I tend to doubt that they know who he was much less how much they converge with him.

Here's a laugh - "Creationist Cosmos":

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa1a1c8fb7/creationist-cosmos

Edited April 17, 2014 by Intuition

[Padma]

I am fascinated by the posts about being taught to question everything in the Bible! Not where I come from so it is refreshing and interesting and totally "Who would have thought it?" to me! Thanks for sharing--I hope somehow it comes up more here (I guess, still in the context of conversations about Cosmos, but seems more latitude re: subtopics that at TWOP). Eye-opening!

[Joystickenvy]

I wouldn't say mainstream Christianity gets it's bad rap from "fringe" elements, but certainly there is a wide range of beliefs and approaches. Until I move to "the south," I would have thought most of the creationist type or at least old school or hard core beliefs were confined to "right wing nut jobs," but then I was exposed to the southern baptist church and the Pentecostal holiness churches.

These are very common and very mainstream sects in that part of the country and most of them definitely do not teach questioning the bible or interpreting it as anything but the absolute word of god.

As a non-religious person who's only exposure to church had been a couple of brief visits to "free will baptist" churches as a child, it was a real eye opener for me. I was a member of a bluegrass band that had two members who attended a popular southern baptist church. We were booked to play a set after the morning service, so I attended the service before hand.

The preacher proceeded to read from the story of sodom and Gomorrah and then explained how the series of deadly hurricanes in Florida that year were God's punishment for gay marriage. I think my jaw about hit the floor. Until then, I thought the only churches that actually taught that kind of thing were little fringe establishments and hate groups like WBC, not some huge mainstream mega church with its own cable broadcast.

The grip followers of these churches have gained on state legislature and the crazy stuff they've managed to force into school districts in that area is alarming. So yes, there are plenty of religious organiztions who are open to free thinking and questioning of doctrine, but the faction that are not is definitely not just a fringe group of fundamentalists that can be safely ignored.

[millahnna]

That sort of thing is common where I'm originally from, as well (extreme southern rural Illinois where they have a southern accent despite not being in the actual south).  I'm on the west coast now, but in my experience from moving around a lot as a kid (Air Force mother), it's fairly common in a lot of rural areas, even in more liberally regarded states (Oregon is basically Portland and Ashland vs. the rest of the state, for example).  I've met a lot of people who while not traditional fundamentalists, buy into some of the more fundamentalist type ideals in that variety of Christianity and don't understand a lot of science. 

Those things combined put that struggle with basic concepts into everyday life in a way that a lot of us probably don't notice.  That's why I don't mind that this version of Cosmos has been so direct in challenging that specific impediment to rational thinking. 

I figure it's like this; if the variety of faith you have accommodates critical thinking and scientific facts, then those messages aren't directed at you.

[Intuition]

I wouldn't say mainstream Christianity gets it's bad rap from "fringe" elements, but certainly there is a wide range of beliefs and approaches. Until I move to "the south," I would have thought most of the creationist type or at least old school or hard core beliefs were confined to "right wing nut jobs," but then I was exposed to the southern baptist church and the Pentecostal holiness churches.

What is considered "fringe" and "right wing" here in the Northeast, Northwest and maybe California is what is "mainstream" in the Bible Belt, it's when you look at the entire world that it becomes "fringe".  Although even American Baptist churches vary widely.  Some are more like mainstream Protestant, while some are "evangelical", with the latter most often being identified with creationism and fundamentalism.  In fact, the Southern Baptist church is a separate church from the American Baptist Association, and is governed separately.  Southern Baptists believe in the Bible as supreme authority and are typically creationist, while regular Baptists may or may not hold those things, depending on their particular church, as their denomination is very loosely governed and churches are more independent in their thought from one another.  A pew study found that 42% of American Christians are either Catholic or mainstream (mainline) Protestant (which usually comprises Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran, Congregational, etc.), while 26% are evangelical Protestant.  So most American Christians come from a tradition of more openness to science and questioning of the Bible as fact.

Getting back to the show, I tend to agree with Neil Tyson that science needs to be popularized in America because it's amazing how much ignorance there is out there about science these days.  Still, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.  Case in point (I went to HS with Neil, was in his Physics class) is my good female friend who also went to our school.   She belonged to the astronomy club with Neil.  She was born Jewish but got taken in by a fundie Christian church back in the 80s.  She has since left that extreme church but joined another fundie church that was less fire and damnation and cult like.  Needless to say, I tend not to discuss religion with her.  Then last week we spoke on the phone about "Cosmos" and she told me she watched a few minutes of it but then decided it "wasn't for her".  When I asked her what her beliefs were on creation, she told me she did not believe in evolution.  I could not believe it.  I did not disrespect her belief but in private I did not realize that she could be so blinded to the truth.  And here we have a very intelligent woman who went to a HS of Science in New York no less, who was in the astronomy club with Neil Tyson not believing in evolution.  So after that hit home with me I'm pretty much on board with what Neil is trying to do, at least in theory if not always in practice.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Intuition

[Kromm]

  I've met a lot of people who while not traditional fundamentalists, buy into some of the more fundamentalist type ideals in that variety of Christianity and don't understand a lot of science. 

This always weirds me out to some degree.  Because at least in theory we should all be getting approximately the same information in Junior High and High School about Science.  So if it comes down to them "not understanding a lot about science, it's not due to not being exposed.  It's due to either not wanting to hear it/consider it/believe it, or the teaching of it being so bad (or dissuaded from being good) in a community that it's indecipherable (either that, or we'd have to come to some kind of conclusion about IQs--which is probably would lead to even more insult).

Edited April 17, 2014 by Kromm

[Padma]

From Millahnna:  

That's why I don't mind that this version of Cosmos has been so direct in challenging that specific impediment to rational thinking.

I figure it's like this; if the variety of faith you have accommodates critical thinking and scientific facts, then those messages aren't directed at you.

Had to quote this because I think you put it well. NDT shouldn't be pandering to religious beliefs that are "impediments to rational thinking." I think he's chosen his (mild) targets well and tried to balance it (not necessary, imo, but I understand the effort) by showing religious people who used critical thinking and scientific method to make important -contributions- to science.

That so many Americans reject evolution is ... well, I don't know what it is, but it seems like some kind of failure, if not of the education system (I assume it's all being taught), then of the culture that isn't more aggressive about science and scientific facts v. "make-up-what-you-want-and-insist-it's-true-ism." It's odd to think of the emphasis on "deemphasizing rote learning and emphasizing critical thinking skills" in schools (lip service? but the notion that its really happening drives school curriculum) . Because I honestly can't see evidence that we're producing more and better "critical thinkers" than in the past (and rote learning doesn't seem as widespread either.)

Edited April 18, 2014 by Padma

[Joystickenvy]

I think exposure to science education is highly variable by where you live much like exposure to types of religion. Age groups and economic status play some role. Neither of my parents graduated high school and it's not uncommon for people my parents age to have no high school level education at all because they quit school to earn income to support their family.

Schools in some economically depressed areas are basically babysitting facilities and opportunities to learn are limited and made more difficult by outside stresses and sometimes dangerous conditions in the schools. In areas where fundamentalists control school boards, even children of non-fundamentalist parents are exposed to religion based ideas about science in public schools.

I was fortunate to attend decent schools and have an opportunity to attend college, but the playing field is not as level as it should be.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Joystickenvy

[Rhetorica]

I think much of the lack of a science ccurriculum comes from fundamentalist home schoolers. Their studies are not subjected to the rigors of state standards in many states. Having taught at the college level for twenty years, I have

come across more home schoolers in recent years who have not been exposed to any scientific education whatsoever.

Of course, I have also had excellent home schoolers but the rise of fundamentalists is apparent.

[millahnna]

 

I think exposure to science education is highly variable by where you live much like exposure to types of religion.

I'm almost 40 so I can't speak to if this is true still, but in the 80s when I was in grade school, definitely (and considering that is a whole generation of almost 40 people, I guess it makes sense).  So I mentioned my Air Force mom? Well we moved waaaaay more than is the norm for Air Force families with a child dependent (at least once a year, several times 2 or 3 times a year).  I went to 13 different schools in 5 different states across the country by the time she got out when I was in junior high.  And this sort of thing becomes real apparent when you switch schools in mid-school year.  Even when I was just school hopping in Northern California, one school would be behind on math but ahead on history.  And moving from different states (I did Ohio to NorCal and back to Ohio a few times)?  Fuggedaboutit.

[Eegah]

We'll see if this last episode shuts any of these people up, by showing a willingness to call out fellow scientists who did wrong. I'm guessing no.

[Padma]

Americans, Science and Religion: A Poll of What Americans Think Is True

http://cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/big-bang-theory-questioned-most-americans-15183.shtml

[millahnna]

THat's depressing but not unexpected.

 

Also the comments on that are a travesty in terms of scientific literacy.  I'm no uber genius or anything but even I know that theory does not mean what creationists seem to think it means.  That particular non-argument just makes me rage.

Edited April 22, 2014 by millahnna

[Joystickenvy]

An interesting aspect of that poll is that it touches on subjects like vaccinations, which are prime examples that there are more forces at work than religion vs science.

There's lack of trust due to real and imagined ulterior motives of scientists and those who fund and publish their research.

Many Americans who are generally receptive to science are distrustful of the monied interests that fund some studies. Paranoia is rampant and many Americans seem very susceptible to hype and fear mongering. Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause autism and suddenly people are floating dubious "proofs" around Facebook like they are hard facts.

A combination of inability and unwillingness to do even basic research before buying into an idea is an even bigger issue than deficits in education. You can overcome poor education if you are willing to put the effort in to educate yourself, but many are not.

[sev]

- continued from the "S01.E07: The Clean Room" thread -
 

Yes, and my point is that perhaps in the future technology will also help us find the spiritual dimension, because up until this point any evidence of it has been denied and downplayed by more materialist scientists.

But that's what makes me shake my head. There is an assertion that science is an inadequate method for metaphysics, but at the same time an understanding that only once science verifies this realm, it will become more than speculations and deep thoughts experiments. In a way is like formulating an hypothesis and expecting someone else to prove it while calling them inept.

Can I ask what spiritual evidence has been denied or downplayed?

Thank you for the discussion. And if I sound too adversary is only due to my lack of articulation.

Edited April 25, 2014 by sev