05-09-2006, 12:33 PM
"You say you would die rather than live without my love, then
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?"
Regards the fellow challenging Sagan to prove he loved his wife I suspect Sagan answered and didn't let the fellow get away thinking he had the last word. What I would have said to such a challenge would have been along the lines of what I wrote earlier:
1) there are things that are unexplained but still consistent with what we know about nature; love is a strong emotional bond; we do not know how emotions emerge from biochemistry but there is no evidence what so ever that emotions violate know laws of nature. I do not have the foggiest idea what emotions are but I am certain that the biochemistry is still at the basis. I "believe" this is more likely than the contrary claim - emotions have some non-physical origin - because biochemical alterations (drugs, disease, stress) may change emotions very dramatically. That does not mean that I can explain emotions studying biochemistry alone, bottom up. Need other categories, higher-up concepts to understand complex social behavior and what feedback exits between the biochemistry of the brain and the external world, etc etc. Reductionism is a darn good idea if we mean it to mean that at rock bottom there are the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean physics can explain all higher level phenomena occur nor that physics will, sooner or later, be able to. Maybe physics applies the wrong concepts and categories and cannot properly handle all types of complex phenomena.
2) science doesn't claim to "prove" things the same way one proves a theorem in math. We first need to discuss what we mean by "proof". Personally I would never challenge a believer of some pseudo-effect to "prove" his claim, but at least to substantiate it with some evidence that wasn't useless. I wouldn't challenge a believer in God (s) to prove (his/hers, their) existence, but to at least avoid saying solipistically "I believe and that is enough for me", or posing useless questions like "how else do you explain this or that". What is an indirect proof of the existence of God for one person may be an interesting topic of research for another.
Love, emotions are worthy of study or are they not? If you say yes, they are worthy of study (you acknowledge them interesting topics), then our positions are close. If you say no they shouldn't be studied because science cannot do them justice, then we very distant.
Now suppose you say "OK, love, emotions are worthy of study, but religion? GOD? No science cannot do justice to Religion. Certainly science cannot be sufficient to study GOD". QUESTION: Are you sure of the boundary, demarcation between what may be studied and understood and what may be not without violating some taboo? Maybe you drew the line too quickly? Maybe you shouldn't have crossed it earlier? Maybe there is no line, or it should be be pushed all the way, one way or the other (to one extreme no God. to the other extreme no questions what-so-ever). These are the questions I like asking to those that "believe", whatever they claim to believe. Are you aware of what you are doing when you believe something? Where and why do you draw the line.
I acknowledge that a personal belief can be very strong and make a person behave this way or that, but to say the act of believing is enough to justify the belief (it own existence) is circular. If a person prefers not to reason that is also fine with me and to be frank that is precisely what religion is all about. Faith is not "beyond" reason, it is actually something completely different, something else, it is incompatible with reason. It all boils down to abandoning-oneself to an act of faith, without further question. When you believe you stop asking questions. Those that ask questions are not, in that moment, believing. No value judgment here, just an attempt to say things clearly. There are no compromises or possible synthesis possible other than the fact that both these incompatible behaviors can be found in a single person. Human are fortunately full of contradictions and it is difficult to find someone that does not how doubts one way or the other. The basic drama of human existence is having to live out our lives and face death. We all cope one way or another and all of us will probably invoke a God in the last moments as we feel our consciousness slip away.
WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?"
Regards the fellow challenging Sagan to prove he loved his wife I suspect Sagan answered and didn't let the fellow get away thinking he had the last word. What I would have said to such a challenge would have been along the lines of what I wrote earlier:
1) there are things that are unexplained but still consistent with what we know about nature; love is a strong emotional bond; we do not know how emotions emerge from biochemistry but there is no evidence what so ever that emotions violate know laws of nature. I do not have the foggiest idea what emotions are but I am certain that the biochemistry is still at the basis. I "believe" this is more likely than the contrary claim - emotions have some non-physical origin - because biochemical alterations (drugs, disease, stress) may change emotions very dramatically. That does not mean that I can explain emotions studying biochemistry alone, bottom up. Need other categories, higher-up concepts to understand complex social behavior and what feedback exits between the biochemistry of the brain and the external world, etc etc. Reductionism is a darn good idea if we mean it to mean that at rock bottom there are the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean physics can explain all higher level phenomena occur nor that physics will, sooner or later, be able to. Maybe physics applies the wrong concepts and categories and cannot properly handle all types of complex phenomena.
2) science doesn't claim to "prove" things the same way one proves a theorem in math. We first need to discuss what we mean by "proof". Personally I would never challenge a believer of some pseudo-effect to "prove" his claim, but at least to substantiate it with some evidence that wasn't useless. I wouldn't challenge a believer in God (s) to prove (his/hers, their) existence, but to at least avoid saying solipistically "I believe and that is enough for me", or posing useless questions like "how else do you explain this or that". What is an indirect proof of the existence of God for one person may be an interesting topic of research for another.
Love, emotions are worthy of study or are they not? If you say yes, they are worthy of study (you acknowledge them interesting topics), then our positions are close. If you say no they shouldn't be studied because science cannot do them justice, then we very distant.
Now suppose you say "OK, love, emotions are worthy of study, but religion? GOD? No science cannot do justice to Religion. Certainly science cannot be sufficient to study GOD". QUESTION: Are you sure of the boundary, demarcation between what may be studied and understood and what may be not without violating some taboo? Maybe you drew the line too quickly? Maybe you shouldn't have crossed it earlier? Maybe there is no line, or it should be be pushed all the way, one way or the other (to one extreme no God. to the other extreme no questions what-so-ever). These are the questions I like asking to those that "believe", whatever they claim to believe. Are you aware of what you are doing when you believe something? Where and why do you draw the line.
I acknowledge that a personal belief can be very strong and make a person behave this way or that, but to say the act of believing is enough to justify the belief (it own existence) is circular. If a person prefers not to reason that is also fine with me and to be frank that is precisely what religion is all about. Faith is not "beyond" reason, it is actually something completely different, something else, it is incompatible with reason. It all boils down to abandoning-oneself to an act of faith, without further question. When you believe you stop asking questions. Those that ask questions are not, in that moment, believing. No value judgment here, just an attempt to say things clearly. There are no compromises or possible synthesis possible other than the fact that both these incompatible behaviors can be found in a single person. Human are fortunately full of contradictions and it is difficult to find someone that does not how doubts one way or the other. The basic drama of human existence is having to live out our lives and face death. We all cope one way or another and all of us will probably invoke a God in the last moments as we feel our consciousness slip away.
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
