A (object/idea) = B (symbol) = C (interpreted meaning)
As I argued before, in an almost Platonistic sense we cannot know the fundamental nature of reality; we can only live in our interpreted reality, isolated from concrete reality and each other by our reliance on sensory interpretation and symbolic communication.
A major question of religion and science, then, is “What is the makeup and origin of reality?”
I know that anyone who read my last entry is thinking, "Ha! He said that ‘the only true philosophical question is suicide.’" Firstly, I didn't say that I agreed with Camus' statement or that I believed he meant it with such totality. Secondly, I differentiate philosophy from science or religion: The first philosophers - being natural philosophers - were also scientists; but science then budded off to become its own entity, leaving philosophy to cover theoretical metaphysics and morality. To put it another way:
- Science explains reality but will not attempt to tell you how to live*
- Philosophy explains how to live but doesn’t use theological argumentation
- Religion explains both reality and how to live.
* Of course, psychology is a branch of behavioral science which attempts to create a scientific morality--but it ends up borrowing from philosophy and religion to do so.
---- -- - --- - -- ----
A (object/idea) = B (symbol) = C (interpreted meaning)
So science and religion both purport to understand ‘A’ in our symbology schema—the true nature of reality. However, their methodologies differ drastically.
Science
Science concurs with the premise that we cannot directly measure reality. It uses microscopes and x-rays and cloud chambers. It beams things off of other things and then measures what comes out. Science also allows for instrumental error and demands numerous experiments in order to prove something as scientific law...a law subject to revision I might add. A truly objective scientist will not say, “I know that this is the way it is.” They will say, “This is the way the universe seems to be.”
Religion
Religion, on the other hand, professes to know the inner workings of the universe—directly and wholly. It purports to know the origins and underpinnings of reality, not from observation and theorizing but through direct communion with a metaphysical reality or entity. This direct communication can take various forms: spiritual interaction (e.g. prayer), meditation, visionary episodes, trances, out-of-body experiences or chemically-induced hallucinations. So, religious knowledge sidesteps the A = B = C process and becomes instead:
A (object/idea) = D (awareness of that reality)
(This is why Glasnost says in his comment that an individual with the benefit of personal revelation need not doubt the symbology of the Bible: because in his proposed schema there is no 'B' element--or rather, the 'B' element is negligible.)
There are only three ways to analyze this religious (A = D) schema. You cannot really prove or disprove the ‘D’ element since that would require knowing the true nature of reality, which is what we’re trying to do in the first place. So you're left with three options:
1) Compare their awareness of reality (‘D’ element) against the known world. Treat it like you would a scientific theory. See if it actually explains anything.
2) Compare different ‘D’ elements against each other. Why is it that Hindus have a different understanding of the world than Christians, who have a different understanding than Muslims? They all use similar methodology to discover reality, so why are their findings so dissimilar?
3) Try to have your own religious experience.
I know that this seems cold and analytical to anyone more faithful than me. You are probably now thinking to yourself, “Religion is not supposed to be analyzed like this. Religion is warm and comforting. You are too cold and surgical in your analysis.” I know this. Music and art and religion appeal to the emotions. If you spend all your time analyzing music, you can often stop enjoying it. However, a good balance between analysis and emotional appreciation, I believe, can only heighten the experience for us.
Moreover, we all live in a dualistic rational/emotional world and are blessed with both a brain and a heart...but sometimes my brain and heart can disagree. That dissonance bothers me. That’s why I am a skeptic.
...Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
Mark 9:24
4 comments:
Sometimes i think its all just semantics.
Its as if life began with this 'core reality,' and everyone tried to name it, label it, and classify it... (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, right?) In fact, one of Adam's first tasks was to begin 'naming' and classifying all the different species and forms of matter. Soon those names and lablels took on a form and shape of their own, and begin changing and metamorphosing... Soon this nomenclature began to spin outward fractally in a big bang of symbology and linguistics.
differentiation...karyokinesis...evolution/devolution
Its as if we're all still feeding on this 'core reality' or demiurge, but we're all labeling it from different perspectives and viewpoints and histories. its constantly changing depending on who holds its definition...who wraps their words around it...
yet because all these words are all eminating from various perspectives fixed in time and space, and not uniformly throughout the whole of the human race (or life in general), they fail individually in their attempts to wrap themselves around the whole of this "core," It remains aloof, outside of time and space... beyond it... eternal and all-encompassing...pregnant with trillions of teeming voices.
still, although these voices, words, and definitions all fail individually to circumscribe this totality, perhaps they do begin to define it collectively.... the voices become different shades and textures which paint a magnificent chiaroscuro of breath and energy....
Jared, you're so good at being logical and systematic in your approach...I love it. I tend to spiral out of control, and always find myself grasping.
Don't be too hard on Al, or yourself. When he calls suicide the "only serious" philosiphical question, it seems that's because if one can't answer it satisfactorily for oneself, then the other questions aren't going to matter. That doesn't preclude the exsistence of other worthwhile philosiphical problems. (Or, for that matter, worthless philosiphical problems.)
While I think your classification of science, philosophy, and religion is rather simplified, I find I agree with most of your analysis. Although, I am curious about your statement, "science concurs with the premise that we cannot directly measure reality." It seems to me like science's primary purpose is to measure reality, at least as far as we are able. The distance from London to Oxford is x meters; this book weighs x kilograms; etc. Working on the discovery of sub-atomic particles involves a certain degree of deduction and maybe even guesswork, but that's not all of science. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by this, because I concede I may be missing your point here.
Anyway, I sympathize with your position, Phee, because I am largely the same way. I am generally digusted with those who exempt religion from logical analysis. I have asked questions, only to be met with a pseudo-scholar's laugh, as though the answer would be something I couldn't possibly hope to comprehend. I admit that my perception of God allows that He is far, far beyond my full understanding, by His very nature, but I get the impression these people don't have a good answer, and just brush me off as lacking understanding.
Anyway. Shasta, I find your point interesting indeed. It's a position I've never actually considered, though it is taking the symbology argument to one of its logical conclusions. It does seem like an awful lot of philosophy is a struggle to get past semantics, boundaries imposed by language, to the reality lurking underneath. Yet, it still presupposes a certain reality. That's not a problem, but as Phee stated toward the beginning, the only reality we can be certain of is our perceived reality.
Man, that can be aggravating, just like trying to debate religion, because ultimately, I can just fall back on the "Well, I have a differing concept of the nature of things," just as readily as somebody else could fall back on, "My personal revelation from God tells me otherwise." It gets ridiculous, and it's why I get exasperated with reading philosophy sometimes. Nothing is certain, nothing is absolute. How much easier if we were all of us born with an innate knowledge that we share a common reality, with some predefined parameters for what that reality is.
I think I got off on sort of a tangent/rant there. I aplogize.
On a final note ... anybody notice that Phee's and Shasta's posts are exactly three hours apart? Cool!
I don't think it's a semantical problem--at least, unless you want to take a post-modernistic view. So I agree with Dan in the respect that, if you take a line of argument long enough, it all becomes semantics and relativism.
I believe there's an ontological core to this argument though, and I believe I'll be able to respond to both of your comments with it.
I considered what I had argued about science and almost thought of recanting. But I really do believe just that. I feel that scientific methodology doesn't measure reality--it only imitates it. You create a mathematical model and it helps you guess what nature will do. Newton created one of the first such models, but it broke down with near-light speed constructs. Einstein's equations were more accurate in that situation. However, it's not that relativity doesn't matter at low speeds: just that the variance is too minute to matter. So to put it another way: our mathematical model wasn't delicate enough. The same problem occurs now with Einstein's mathematical model on a sub-atomic scale...it wasn't precise enough for reality.
Still, it's not that they are not hoping to understand our universe. Like you said, they are trying to measure it. But there's no possible way to actually BE THERE, with science. We know that we cannot possibly (at this time) know what is at the other edge of the universe, or beyond this universe, so instead we do guess work, and see if the mathematical model holds true. But when it comes down to it, I believe a scientist will not say, "I KNOW that science is completely accurate in what we hold true."
Religion, on the other hand, professes to know the underlying nature of reality 'a priori'. They even admit to not knowing huge chunks of information and yet STILL dogmatically saying they know truth. And all of them say this, in every religion. So if you actually compare each religion's evidences against one another, you would see that they all say pretty much the same thing: I know this because I know this. I know this because someone else knew this. It seems like circular reasoning to me.
And, finally, they'll often use the 'ad hominum' argument by attacking you and saying that you take the "truth to be hard."
So, back to Shasta's argument: I'm still up in the air (I'm reading Joseph Campbell and he's arguing similarly). It could be that what you're saying is correct. The reason I'm disagreeing, though, is because I think that the logic thread is completely different between science and religion: religion starts with knowledge and sticks with it to the bitter end; while science starts with tabula rasa and then tries to prove it.
Okay, I get it now, and I agree witcha: science isn't about trying to explain the nature of reality. As I suspected, I had the wrong thing in mind.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
By the way, can I take a moment to apologize for my "blah, blah, your description is too simplified, blah, blah" comment? Man, what an arrogant thing to say! You did a great job breaking things down to basics. As usual, you've provided an interesting topic to mull over, Phee.
Post a Comment