Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

fundamental conflict between science and religion

Rate this topic


Godless Capitalist

Recommended Posts

Many people subscribe to the view that science and religion do not conflict because they deal with different areas of knowledge. My counter to that argument is to point out that science is based on reality and reason, whereas religion is not. They are incompatible because they are based on contradictory premises. If you think that reality and reason are the proper basis for knowledge in science, you should think that they apply to all areas of knowledge. Most people reject this because they think that reason cannot be used in areas like ethics or other human values and therefore some other approach is needed. Then I have to go through trying to explain the Objectivist ethics, and so on ...

Can anybody suggest a more direct way to show that there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion can be based on reason, though. For an example, look at Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, which puts forth cosmological arguments for the existence of God as a divine Creator. It was the first major theological work after the Dark Ages to be based in the classical framework of Aristotle, which had just been rediscovered at the time, rather than Plato. (Ayn Rand herself considered Aquinas to be one of the most rational and objective thinkers of his day; he is mentioned several times in the published "Letters of Ayn Rand").

For a more modern example, look to the Deists, or William Paley's famous "Watchmaker" arguments.

Now, I won't deny that most people who hold a religion do so on faith, claiming some sort of direct gnosis, or merely regurgitating a lifetime of indoctrination. But don't make the mistake of claiming that religion cannot be based on reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MichaelM

Anatole, the operative word here is "based" in a stricter sense than you are using it. Sometimes you have to drill a little deeper to find the faith. Without detracting from Aquinas' monumental achievement, one must still recognize that at the base of every religion -- his included -- there is something supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, here's one that's as direct as you can get.  They're sneaking in the idea that religion is based on knowledge.  It's not; it's based on faith.  If you want knowledge, you have to accept a means of gaining knowledge.  Faith doesn't qualify.

I should not have used the phrase "areas of knowledge." Many people think essentially that knowledge is only possible in science, and that for other areas we cannot have any definite answers, and therefore we should just use whatever faith or emotions tell us.

This is related to the "is-ought" distinction--the idea that what a thing is cannot tell you what is ought to do, eg that observation of reality cannot be derived to derive ethics. I know this is a fallacy, but what is an easy way to prove it?

Another related problem is what to tell people who learn something about Objectivism and say "That's great, and I agree with it, but most people are not rational and/or intelligent enough to understand it, therefore Objectivism will never be widely accepted." They may go on to say that, for example, religion is necessary to "keep people in line"; otherwise most people would have no ethics at all and would run wild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question to ask, re: the second paragraph, is: why ought anything do anything? Why does the whole issue come up at all? If the person responds by saying "we need morality to live" or some such answer, you can work from there. If they say something like "I just feel that it's right," or "it's just something you have to take on faith", I doubt you'll get much out of further discussion. You can't win 'em all... there's no argument that can force people to think.

As for the last, you might point out that they're holding a double-standard. The average church-goer doesn't understand his religion as well as a theologian, right? But there's an assumption that they are capable of following the religion's moral code. Well, the same thing applies to philosophy. You don't need a PH.D. to be moral. Understanding the basic ideas of a philosophy doesn't require a whole ton of study. Lots of people say just reading Atlas Shrugged changed their life; they may not have the most precise formulations of their principles, and their context may be pretty limited, but they've got *something*. To the extent of their intelligence and needs, they can always improve that with further study. (If you've got time, the "spiral theory of knowledge" might be a useful thing to mention here. But it can take a bit of explaining.)

Ok, the last point. "People are too irrational for philosophy to be a proper moral guide." Too irrational in what sense? Do they mean it broadly, that they hold lots of false beliefs that mislead them? If that's the case, that's all the more reason that they *do* need religion. Or do they mean that people just refuse to think? If that's the case, it's hard to see why they'd be better bound by religion than by philosophy.

There's a lot more that could be said on that, but it'd depend a lot on precisely what they have in mind underlying those broad generalities. Last bit of advice I'd give you is to spend some time seriously trying to understand exactly where they're coming from. Do a little philosophical detection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or do they mean that people just refuse to think?  If that's the case, it's hard to see why they'd be better bound by religion than by philosophy. 

The issue here is that you don't have to think much to follow religion. You just do whatever the Pope or whoever says. The religion just tells them "don't kill" "don't steal" and so on and if people follow those rules the society will more-or-less function.

To follow a philosophy such as Objectivism, you have to think and study and you may still not get it. If Objectivism were the only source of moral values in our society I honestly fear that many people would misunderstand or misinterpret it and act the way Objectivists are often caricatured as wanting to act, like Nietzchean (sp?) monsters. That's not say I endorse religion of course, but i think there are some real issues Objectivism does not address enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it's an issue of how much depth somebody needs. Take a look in OPAR and see if any of the virtues, in their basic statements (at the beginning of each section on virtue) are so complicated that the average man-on-the-street wouldn't be able to use them as a guide to his life. To be sure, there can be circumstances that require a more fleshed-out understanding of the virtues to resolve, but they're rare.

Two other things to bear in mind. 1) Having Rand's fictional portrayals of heroic characters is a great benefit. There's perhaps some danger of people trying to emulate them in detail instead of principle, but I suspect that's the sort of thing people can work out for themselves. (I've heard stories of at least one person back in the early NBI days dying his hair orange to be more like Roark. I can't imagine he kept it up for very long, though I don't know for sure. People usually manage to take care of their own silliness in the long-term.) Some people have told me they find it useful to use her characters as a way to ground themselves, so to speak, when thinking about applying abstract principles to concrete actions. "What would Roark do?" I've never found this useful, personally, but I can see why somebody might.)

2) Some of this has to do, simply, with culture. People who are less capable of intellectual innovation, less capable of critical thinking and so forth, will necessarily be less able to separate themselves from the cultural status quo. (If they do, it'll be more for sense-of-life reasons than for intellectual reasons, and this may lead to serious conflict.) So while there might be some merit in the claim *as applied to our culture now*, there isn't *in principle*. For example: it's true that many people in our culture think that the only way you can have morality is through religion. Perhaps it's also true that some of them, if they were convinced that religion is false, would flip to the other side of the coin and become hedonists/amoralists. This just identifies that there is a pervasive and deep philosophical problem in our culture that needs to be addressed. Again, it's evidence that Objectivism *is* needed, not the opposite.

Saying "Somebody might misinterpret Objectivism, so we shouldn't advocate it" is like banning water because somebody might drown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that I don't mean the statements in OPAR could be used out of context. In isolation, they'd be nearly useless. But you don't need to be a genius to make sense out of them, particularly if you have seen them concretized in fictional form before. (I'll also add that Rand's novels are hardly the only artworks which concretize proper virtues, so the objection that "not everybody is smart enough to read Galt's Speech" doesn't hold up very well either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying "Somebody might misinterpret Objectivism, so we shouldn't advocate it" is like banning water because somebody might drown.

I certainly don't intend that, and I agree with everything you have said.

Part of what worries me is that the cultural deprogramming that needs to be done is a monumental task. :)

I will try to get my friend to join this thread and explain his perspective (which I may not have represented perfectly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it's a monumental task. The worst part isn't the content of the bad ideas in the culture, but the methodology. If you take a severe rationalist and expose them to Objectivism, and they like it, expect all sorts of horrible things to happen. :) (But then, if they keep at it, wait a few years. Usually they'll start to improve. I did.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that worries me is that the Objectivist movement itself is full of schisms. Even people who are supposedly very rational and have been studing the philosophy for years somehow get into massive disagreements (e.g. the Piekoff/Kelley split over "toleration"). As the movement gets bigger these schisms will only get worse, and 99.99% of the general public will have no idea who is right. What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't see the big deal here. How will they decide? Well, that first of all presupposes that they will. We're largely talking about people whose theoretical interest in Objectivism would be, by stipulation, comparatively shallow. Why would they care to even *try* to evaluate the merit of various organizations based on the sort of complex philosophical criteria you have in mind? Most people probably have better things to do with their time. (I've met plenty of Objectivists who simply don't care about such matters, and I'm pretty sympathetic to that.)

Now assume that they do decide to try to evaluate various philosophical organizations. How would they do it? Well, how do they reach *any* conclusion? They'll have to either decide to think it through for themselves to the best of their ability, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have explained more. The "toleration" debate may not be relevant to most people but what if schisms develop over political issues such as whether we should have attacked Iraq or not? My point is that people will have to rationally analyze complex issues all the time to make decisions about the positions of candidates for office, who will decide govt policy. Ideally of course that should happen now, but it doesn't and its hard to imagine it ever will. Anyway, maybe you are right; let me think about it some more ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, do. It sounds like your ideal would be a world in which people don't need to think in order to make the right decisions. They'd accept Objectivism, and see a politician who says "Hey, I'm an Objectivist!" and vote for him. Or, they'd read an op-ed on the ARI site and vote according to whatever it recommends. If you think it through further, I think you'd see that such a world is not possible and, if it were, wouldn't be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I'm the aforementioned friend of the Godless Capitalist. We've engaged in many fascinating conversations on another board - I'm flattered to see that he would bring up some of my views on an unrelated forum! ;)

First, some background: Most of our discussion on Objectivism has been in relation to "Religion" as a whole. I've always been an atheist (I consider myself more of an agnostic, but for all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist) but over the course of my lifetime in talking to various people, travelling this great country extensively and in general just paying attention to the world's cultures I've seen the incalculable benefit that Religion has for the world's population as a whole. Certainly Religion is used as a tool for hatred, bigotry and oppression in countless societies, but these are mostly manifestations (is that a word) of adherants bending their belief system to their desires and needs, which you will see in every Religion.

GC clearly has a bone to pick with Religion, and I honestly think he'd like to see it eradicated completely. I can't say I disagree completely - I would rather see people being nice to each other just because it makes sense, but I think I see the reality of the role that Religion plays in people's lives. You can't remove it without replacing it with something - that something, according to GC, is Objectivism.

In reading the first few chapters of the Virtue of Selfishness, it is clear that Rand's philosophy is always in direct juxtoposition with Religion. But my contention is that the only thing that Objectivism can hope to replace is the "moral" component of Religion. But Religion is not simply an architecture for forming a "moral" society. If you talk to adherants, morality is a large component for sure - but it goes far beyond that. All people need hope in their lives - for adherants Hope is a big theme, and is the primary thing that Objectivism simply cannot speak to. GC has pointed out that plenty of people live hopeful lives without Religion, and this is certainly the case. But looking to ourselves is a poor assessment of how others can or should live their lives. Most of us are educated, comfortable if not wealthy, probably come from supportive families, etc. Our prospects look pretty good - we feel that there's nothing we can't accomplish with enough determination. Unfortunately, the majority of the world's people are not so lucky. For some people, their lives are truly hopeless. So what does Objectivism offer them? Very little, I would say.

As far as I see it, the fact that Religion is based on allegorical stories that are most likely untrue isn't very problematic for me. All Religion has followed an evolutionary pattern, in almost a Darwinian sense - aspects of the Religion that provide a benefit to its adherants are passed on, the parts which are harmful or unneeded are left behind. So over the years, you have a honed morality which is based on "nothing" in the objective sense, but represents a refined moral code that "makes sense" regardless. The moral code in the Ten Commandments makes sense, regardless of the phoney balony authority it is based on. That shalt not murder? That shalt not commit adultery? Does anyone disagree with that?

Now, at the same time - I do believe in Stephen Jay Gould's principle of the NOMA - the Nonoverlapping Magisteria. That Religion and Science deal with two different kingdoms of knowledge - Science explains how the heavens go, Religion explains how to go to Heaven. Once Religion tries to explain the physical world, it has violated this principle. Once Science tries to explain morality, it has violated the principle as well. This does not mean that ethics cannot be achieved through reasoning, or are contigent on some sort of higher (Religious) Authority, but if you look to nature to derive some sort of objective morality - you simply can't. Nature is amoral. Nature isn't concerned with right and wrong, with fairness or with provided hope for the animals within it. For more on this, check out http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/interes...magisteria.html . GC and I have argued about this philosophy, and he brings up some good points which I'm sure will get rehashed here. ;) But in general, even if I don't agree with it 100%, I embrace the spirit of it.

Hope that cleared things up a bit, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All people need hope in their lives [...] Our prospects look pretty good - we feel that there's nothing we can't accomplish with enough determination. Unfortunately, the majority of the world's people are not so lucky. For some people, their lives are truly hopeless. So what does Objectivism offer them? Very little, I would say.

I think Objectivism offers them a whole lot more hope than other philosophies. Objectivism says, "It is the fittest who survive, and it is up to you how fit you are. You can use your mind, be productive, trade, create a lot of wealth, and enjoy the fruits of your efforts, here and now, in this life of yours on Earth."

Calvinism, in contrast, says this: "God has decided whether you will go to Hell or Heaven before you were even born. If you go to Hell, you will suffer for eternity; if you go to Heaven, it will be great for you. The choice is up to God; he has made his choice, and there is nothing you can do about it." What a bleak outlook on life! The best you can hope for is that you will be lucky enough to happen to be one of God's favorites. There is no way you can honestly earn any reward!

Other denominations of Christianity promise you Heaven if you are meek enough. That gives you more hope--"If I am patient enough and pay for my heavenly bliss with tears and toil in my earthly life, I can count on God's favor after I die." Too bad this is a false hope, and a destructive one to boot. You spend your life paying dearly for something you are never allowed to look at before you finish paying, sold to you by a person you have never seen. You give up all your opportunities on Earth, which you know are real, in exchange for something you are told is very desirable, but can never be previewed--and you are told so by people who have never seen it themselves.

This is what Islam promises you: "If you kill enough infidels, you will be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise." Now that's quite a lot of hope--provided that you are a bloodthirsty pervert. I think I needn't elaborate further on this one.

There is no use in hoping for something that will not happen; you do not help yourself by acting on ideas that do not correspond to reality, or by believing yourself week and dreaming of a prince to come and save you. The true gospel--the real good news--is that you have the power to control your actions; that you can employ your mind to fathom reality and choose the actions that are best for you; that you can exert your will to overcome obstacles; and that you can cooperate with your fellow men by means of trade to achieve the greatest prosperity for yourself and everyone else, rather than having to take away their livelihood to secure yours.

Hope is much sweeter when it is grounded in reality--when you don't only dream, but make your dreams come true--and Objectivism offers you just that kind of hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, at the same time - I do believe in Stephen Jay Gould's principle of the NOMA - the Nonoverlapping Magisteria. That Religion and Science deal with two different kingdoms of knowledge - Science explains how the heavens go, Religion explains how to go to Heaven. Once Religion tries to explain the physical world, it has violated this principle. Once Science tries to explain morality, it has violated the principle as well. This does not mean that ethics cannot be achieved through reasoning, or are contigent on some sort of higher (Religious) Authority, but if you look to nature to derive some sort of objective morality - you simply can't. Nature is amoral. Nature isn't concerned with right and wrong, with fairness or with provided hope for the animals within it.

I hope the reason no one commented on the 'morality' aspect of idjiit's post is that everyone recognized the package dealing and other logical fallacies he engaged in with his comments about the different 'kingdoms of knowledge' and how nature (ie the natural world) cannot be related TO morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it's an issue of how much depth somebody needs. Take a look in OPAR and see if any of the virtues, in their basic statements (at the beginning of each section on virtue) are so complicated that the average man-on-the-street wouldn't be able to use them as a guide to his life. To be sure, there can be circumstances that require a more fleshed-out understanding of the virtues to resolve, but they're rare.

I should add that I don't mean the statements in OPAR could be used out of context. In isolation, they'd be nearly useless. But you don't need to be a genius to make sense out of them, particularly if you have seen them concretized in fictional form before. (I'll also add that Rand's novels are hardly the only artworks which concretize proper virtues, so the objection that "not everybody is smart enough to read Galt's Speech" doesn't hold up very well either.)

Yeah, do.  It sounds like your ideal would be a world in which people don't need to think in order to make the right decisions.  They'd accept Objectivism, and see a politician who says "Hey, I'm an Objectivist!" and vote for him.  Or, they'd read an op-ed on the ARI site and vote according to whatever it recommends.  If you think it through further, I think you'd see that such a world is not possible and, if it were, wouldn't be good.

No, my ideal world would be one in which everyone thinks through every issue carefully before making a decision. My concern is that such a world may be possible only if the vast majority of people are Objectivists. The problem with that is that becoming an Objectivist takes a significant amount of time, study, and intellectual ability, which most people simply do not have.

I don't think it is sufficient to just hold basic virtues and fictional examples if you don't really understand the philosophic basis for them. You can expect people to support an Objectivist govt based just on that.

GC (oops, forgot to log in again)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I meant "can't" in my last sentence above.)

If you want an example of the sort of problems I am afraid might occur, look at the discussion here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...topic=188&st=20

Now imagine RadCap and DAC are running against each other for political office, and environmental regulation is one of the main issues. How would the average person know who is right, and thus who to vote for, unless they had a thorough understanding of Objectivist principles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...