Doubt

Discussion on a forum between a committed Christian, expressing doubts, and an equally committed and far more certain atheist. Despite the fact that I cannot subscribe to dying-and-reborn gods, I felt much more empathy for the Christian

I think (for what it's worth) that doubt is integral to thinking western man. That is because critical analysis to arrive at an objective (Socratic) truth is core part of our culture. If doubt is not present then reason is merely the sophistry of the lawyer, which is what seemed to happen in the Agora before Socrates came along (and plenty since, as well). No wonder other Athenians found him insufferable.

Add to that scientific method, really a product of the modern West (Greeks would not have got their hands dirty doing experiments - slaves' work) and then all knowledge is provisional, until the next theory comes along which fits the data better.

I will agree on the following resulting from this long tale:
- science has created a history and explanation of the universe from 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang which is far more persuasive than anything else on offer;
- "The God of the Gaps" is very 19th century. All that is left is why anything at all, and why are the laws of physics just right for life to exist;
- there is a core of morality that is from natural selection from our primate past (including altruism for other members of our group, but not for mankind or the universe in general) but it does not go very far. There is still plenty of room for variation in ethics;

I suppose one might accept on this basis the limited position of a Logical Positivist, in other words believe in what science tells you (but it's provisional knowledge, remember), all other questions including those referring to God are meaningless. That's not the same as denying the existence of God.

But on deeper examination it gets worse. The foundations of science are still shaky - despite lots of theoretical attempts little better than simple induction. Goedel's theorem suggests that any system cannot be explained entirely within itself but must have external axioms, and in the case of Western society this includes Judeo-Christian ethics, whether you are a believer or not.

We believe in science only because it works, so incidentally you cannot be a Creationist and use modern technology (or indeed an Islamist) without total hypocrisy.

But if something is true just because it works then it opens a Pandora's Box. Do I believe in something because it is on the winning side? In some areas, perhaps, but in ethics? Look at where that led Nietszche and his followers. For the past two centuries atheistic philosophies and cultures seemed to be winning, but now it is not so sure - so does one switch sides? Why do I find that immoral? Anyway there is no certainty what will win - most intellectuals in the 1930s were fascists or communists

My conclusion from all this is that agnosticism is the most science-compatible conclusion on belief, but it does not get you much further than logical positivism, and you need to be very strong willed. It has all the motivatory power of working on a supermarket checkout. A God who is crucified and resurrected is not excluded by induction - it is a one off event - but to me it still fails other tests, notably Occam's razor.

No logical positivist or purely atheist society has ever existed, they have served other goals, such as progress, historical necessity, nationalism or just satisfying the individual ego. These goals seem to be less empirically effective than God - and especially God seen as universal love. How this can be reconciled with science, we still do not know, but accepting mystical experience, even on an agnostic basis, may be a start.

P.S An exasperated friend once said "You do not know, but you will dogmatically insist that others don't know as well!" He may have had a point!

Thoughts on Evil

Cultures are competing groups, and each of them has an ethical system to ensure internal cohesion. Some ethics are common to our primate ancestry - all societies consider killing within a group (murder) as highly evil, but sanctioned killing outside the group (war) as meritorious, chimpanzees do the same. Mostly, however, each culture has its own definitions of good and evil based on its ethics. Thus for a medieval Christian and a modern Muslim it would be evil not to kill an apostate: for most of us today it would be evil to do so. The only objective measure of "good" and "evil" on this basis is cultural success or failure. Even today many Christians believe that virtuous unbelievers will go to hell, that seems a pretty evil idea to me.

Cultural competition is thus not different from a wider view than biological competition through natural selection, the latter shows altruistic behaviour as well as unspeakable cruelty. The world is amoral, there is not an ounce of justice except as created by our own myths.

Trouble is, if you believe this, you end up either a cynic or a fascist. Is there any way out? Possibly it seems in preaching universal love and damn the consequences, as Jesus and Buddha, and many mystics seems to have done. It doesn't work very well, but what other hope is there?

Religion and Reason

Religion is unreasonable? Muslims at least are honest about this, you do what Allah tells you. Christians and Jews claim to combine faith and reason, and Buddhism claims to be a rational faith.

Gödel's theorem - no system can be completely and logically described within itself. There have to be external axioms, which are taken as given, and the value of reason is to clarify these axioms ("faith") and follow through on their implications. At least Christians are honest about this, although what is annoying with many of them is that they will not actually debate i.e be willing to consider their own arguments, but are constantly trying to "save" the rest of us. There is also the annoying Abrahamic attitude of there being only one answer to the question - comes of having these male gods who are serial thinkers, I suppose.

Secularists are more disingenuous. Their ethical assumptions are clearly Christian, in the West (but not clear to most of them) or from the Judaic heresy of Marxism. Oh so rational Buddhists are no better - there is not a shred of scientific evidence for reincarnation or a law of karma.

If you cannot agree on axioms, then reason cannot settle the argument, only the brute force of which competing meme is more successful. The logical bases of the scientific method are decidedly dodgy- despite all the philosophers of science such as Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend we have not really got away from induction. But the thing about science is that it works, and one of its results is a history of the universe from 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang which is far more persuasive than anything religion comes up with. It does not answer "Why?" but the mainstream religions are hardly more persuasive (Why did God decide on Creation? Why God? - infinite regress).

For several centuries now secular modernity has had the winning cards, but that may now be changing as secular society becomes more decadent and possibly more infertile as well . To change to the (possibly) winning side just because it is winning hardly seems to be ethical, however, and for being morally disreputable is roughly on a par with Pascal's wager (believe in God, just in case) . Just hope for a new synthesis which transcends all these partial answers, I suppose.