Knowing good history from bad history

[brianleepainter]

Avila,

The mathematician Kepler, having discovered great things through method, held contradictions that did affect his pursuits. Ideas do have consequences, and lead to contradictions:

“Tragically, Kepler was torn by conflicting views regarding the nature of knowledge in general and of mathematics in particular. He opened the door to modern science, but he stepped through only halfway. He was held back by his partial allegiance to a Christianized version of Platonism. When in the grip of this view, he searched for causes in the mind of God rather than in the nature of physical entities, sanctioned wild speculations based on “intuition,” and tolerated the resulting breaches between theory and observation. Thus Kepler stood with one foot forward in the Age of Reason and one foot back in the middle ages.”

“A particularly striking result of Kepler’s contradictory philosophic premises can be seen in his views on the cause of ocean tides. Qua scientist, he started from observational evidence and searched for a physical cause…However, when he considered the same problem from the perspective of his Platonic/Christian mysticism, he searched for a spiritual cause…The results of the experiment could not have been more decisive.” - David Harriman, “The Logical Leap”

[Trebor]

If one’s “principles” require one to ignore reality and historical fact, then one ought to examine those principles and see if maybe they aren’t really just biases.

It’s like someone holding as a principle the notion that man is a land-based creature, and therefore cannot venture into the water. Meanwhile, people are swimming, boats are sailing…

I agree.

Well, that’s convenient! Much easier to hide behind some lofty, reality-denying “principles”.

Yes, it is convenient, but it is not a matter of hiding behind ‘some lofty, reality-denying “principles,”’ for myself at least.

[Avila]

The mathematician Kepler, having discovered great things through method, held contradictions that did affect his pursuits. Ideas do have consequences, and lead to contradictions:

The author you quoted is an Objectivist, and therefore is an adherent to the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Since I don’t regard this view as reality-based, I would suspect that bias plays a large role in his assessment of Kepler.

[Amaroq]

This is Objectivism Online. Objectivism was derived from and grounded in reality. You display a blatant contradiction of and misunderstanding and seemingly explicit disagreement with Objectivism, Avila.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they start from contradictory epistemologies. Religious epistemology takes faith as the proper source of knowledge. Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge. The dichotomy between faith and reason upheld by Objectivism is a principle firmly grounded in, and therefore applicable to, reality.

What are you doing here? What interest do you have in convincing us that religion supports science? Probably the same interest that religious people have in convincing others that religion and science are compatible. Either that or you’re simply unaware of the religions’ ulterior motive whenever they claim this compatibility. They’re trying to give their irrationality an equal validity to science, and you are in effect doing the same thing.

The reason sNerd is saying what he is saying is because there is a causal connection between rationality and scientific progress that he is isolating. A person can be religious and a scientist, but once you isolate the causal connection between rationality and progress, you can see that their faith had nothing to do with their progress. (And in many cases, held back their progress.)

[Avila]

“This is Objectivism Online.”

Yup, I knew that. I like aspects of Objectivism, though I am not an Objectivist. If you look at my profile, you will see that I’ve read a fair amount of Rand (though not all). I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on the various threads.

“Objectivism was derived from and grounded in reality.”

Yes, I know you believe that. Whether that’s true or not is another question. Certainly some aspects of the philosophy are.

“Science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they start from contradictory epistemologies.”

Are you familiar with Aquinas at all? His epistemology is similar – it is through the senses that we become acquainted with material things, and sense perception is central to human cognition. Perhaps you really aren’t acquainted with any religious epistemology, but have simply made some assumptions.

" Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge."

As does Thomism.

“The dichotomy between faith and reason upheld by Objectivism is a principle firmly grounded in, and therefore applicable to, reality.”

That’s more an opinion or bias than anything else, though I acknowledge that it is fundamental to Objectivism.

“What are you doing here?”

Just what I said above: I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on the various threads. I happen to agree with Rand on a number of subjects (such as the arts), and I think she was generally right in what is wrong, economically speaking. But no, I’m not an Objectivist, though I was for some time in my late teens.

“What interest do you have in convincing us that religion supports science?”

Umm, why don’t you look at the subject of this thread? The question was, how does one trust history, or find good sources? I answered because we have sort of inherited many beliefs about history (such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, etc.) that were, in fact, written with an English Reformation bias. Modern historians have debunked some of the myths that we have inherited as historical knowledge. That was the context of my remarks, with tangents necessitated by some comments of others.

" A person can be religious and a scientist, but once you isolate the causal connection between rationality and progress, you can see that their faith had nothing to do with their progress. (And in many cases, held back their progress.)"

No, what you are saying is based on your belief (bias) that religion and rationality are mutually exclusive. I don’t agree, but that’s the subject for another post.

One of the aspects of Aquinas that I admire was his ability to state an opposing view with clarity and completeness – he did not resort to attacking straw-men. I find that the making of straw-men and the caricaturing of an opposing view is indicative of a weakness of one’s own position. I certainly see a lot of that here.

[dream_weaver]

Are you familiar with Aquinas at all? His epistemology is similar – it is through the senses that we become acquainted with material things, and sense perception is central to human cognition. Perhaps you really aren’t acquainted with any religious epistemology, but have simply made some assumptions.

" Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge."

As does Thomism.

What is the process by which Thomism organizes concretes into different groups? How does Rand distinguish her process from his?

[Avila]

It’s difficult to compare and contrast, as Rand gave her own defintions to philosophical terms, which renders discussion clumsy and confusing.

St. Thomas believed that abstracting – a function of the “central sense” – eliminated the limiting characteristics of matter and enabled the mind to apprehend the essence or “real” reality, while the organizing principle of identity remained. So: a material object or event stimulates one or more of our senses. Their reaction is carried to the brain via the nervous system. There the sensations from the various sense receptors (sight, sound, etc.) are pre-consciously combined into one unified percept (Thomis uses the term “phantasm”). We group, then, based on the abstracted essences of things. Does that answer your question?

[DonAthos]

Ultimately one must decide whether the universe is understandable or whether it is not. If the former, then there must be some process by which it is understood. Science, in my view, is that process we’ve determined is best for understanding the universe. (Or rather, it is the name for the process which we’ve laboriously fashioned in order to understand the universe.)

I think that religion comes down to deciding that the universe is not ultimately understandable. That there is “mystery,” in the sense of ancient bacchanals, or in the sense of Job’s questioning Yahweh, or speaking in languages, or transubstantiation, or salvation through grace. Why do things happen the way they do? “God works in mysterious ways,” says the religionist. Faith buffers his belief; it is not proof he seeks, but that which “goes beyond” proof in the form of strong feeling; that he is convinced, is sufficient. And morality is subsequently based on obedience. Since one cannot fathom the mystery, it is judged wicked (or at best useless) to try; ours is not to reason why…

But the scientist brings out his test tube and microscope, because he’s determined to get to the bottom of any so-called mystery. And if others wish to damn him for this, so be it.

This is the fundamental divide. And while there can be players who straddle this gulf, either as individuals or as institutions (like the Catholic Church), depending on the specific era and scenario you’re considering, it still exists. To the extent that Thomas Aquinas sought for explanations apart from “God’s will,” he was acting as a scientist and not as a religionist. But if, at any point, he withdrew from seeking some natural answer and instead deferred to the divine – to the mystery – then it was at that point where he headed in the other direction.

[Avila]

“Ultimately one must decide whether the universe is understandable or whether it is not.”

Agreed.

“I think that religion comes down to deciding that the universe is not ultimately understandable.”

It depends entirely upon the religion. For example, Buddhism generally looks inward at the self, not outward at the world. There are differences based on a particular religion’s view of God – in the case of Islam, Allah is not bound by rationality and is entirely beyond human comprehension, thus one wouldn’t be sure that the natural laws that Allah laid down could be depended upon. So, although Islam has made a few contributions to science (particularly in mathematics), it pales in comparison to the advancements made by Western civilization. Some Protestant sects (Baptists and fundamentalists of differing stripes) don’t value science, for a variety of reasons. However, traditional (Catholic, Orthodox) Christianity maintains that God is not – cannot be – irrational, and that the rational, ordered world is the result. So the universe IS understandable.

" To the extent that Thomas Aquinas sought for explanations apart from “God’s will,” he was acting as a scientist and not as a religionist. But if, at any point, he withdrew from seeking some natural answer and instead deferred to the divine – to the mystery – then it was at that point where he headed in the other direction."

Aquinas saw all truth as one truth – he would not have viewed the conflict you lay out as even possible.

[DonAthos]

“Ultimately one must decide whether the universe is understandable or whether it is not.”

Agreed.

“I think that religion comes down to deciding that the universe is not ultimately understandable.”

It depends entirely upon the religion. For example, Buddhism generally looks inward at the self, not outward at the world. There are differences based on a particular religion’s view of God – in the case of Islam, Allah is not bound by rationality and is entirely beyond human comprehension, thus one wouldn’t be sure that the natural laws that Allah laid down could be depended upon. So, although Islam has made a few contributions to science (particularly in mathematics), it pales in comparison to the advancements made by Western civilization. Some Protestant sects (Baptists and fundamentalists of differing stripes) don’t value science, for a variety of reasons. However, traditional (Catholic, Orthodox) Christianity maintains that God is not – cannot be – irrational, and that the rational, ordered world is the result. So the universe IS understandable.

" To the extent that Thomas Aquinas sought for explanations apart from “God’s will,” he was acting as a scientist and not as a religionist. But if, at any point, he withdrew from seeking some natural answer and instead deferred to the divine – to the mystery – then it was at that point where he headed in the other direction."

Aquinas saw all truth as one truth – he would not have viewed the conflict you lay out as even possible.

I think you and I are talking at cross purposes at the moment. The “great religions of the world” typically encompass hundreds of years of history, dense books and treatises attempting to explain their ideas, multiple conflicting sects, and a vast multitude of diverse individuals who each put some spin unique to themselves on the way that they present their faith. There’s no question that among religions, and then among sects within any given religion, and then among individuals within any given sect, that some people will be more rational than others, or more disposed to science than others, or etc. If you say that Islam has a certain relationship to science, pretty good during the Middle Ages but not so much recently, I won’t argue the point; if you’d like to insist that Catholics have it over Protestants, or that Thomas Aquinas had it over Augustine, that’s fine, too.

The central question we’re considering, however, is whether there is anything characteristic of religion qua religion when it comes to an overall attitude towards science. To answer such a question, we must have an understanding of what religions have in common with respect to their understanding of the world. I would say that, fundamentally, to be religious means to ascribe supernatural causes to observed phenomena. And since science is concerned with determining the natural causes of observed phenomena, science and religion are necessarily at loggerheads.

Perhaps you’re right in that Thomas Aquinas didn’t see it that way? Maybe he felt that his views in divinity were perfectly compatible with his scientific views. I would guess, however (pulling this speculation strictly from out of you-know-where), that he found frustrating some earlier thinkers and some of his contemporaries who too quickly would resort to supernatural causes as an explanation for the natural world. Perhaps he removed God as a cause for that which he could find a natural explanation, but reserved God for that which he could not…? I’m sure you’re familiar with the “God of the gaps” argument, and that’s really what we’re facing here. The final expression of this sort is probably deism: God made the world and its natural laws, sure, but he has nothing to do with anything which goes on today. It’s a belief system I find pretty unnecessary and arbitrary, but I imagine that I’d generally get along with Aquinas better than Augustine, the Founding Fathers better than Loyola or Francis, and possibly Catholics better than Fundamentalists. I don’t hold all religions as equivalent, nor all religious people, but these religions do have some things in common. And where science is concerned, religion is fundamentally opposed to it by the nature of what religion is, and quite apart from its individual (and varying) expression.

[dream_weaver]

. Does that answer your question?

It suggests that conceptually you are essentially a Thomist.

[softwareNerd]

… … but I imagine that I’d generally get along with Aquinas better than Augustine, the Founding Fathers better than Loyola or Francis, and possibly Catholics better than Fundamentalists.

Exactly.. … well said! One has to study the similarities and differences between various religions, between various denominations within Christianity or Islam etc., between various individual people within those movements, various points of time when different aspects of the religion were held to be more important than others.

Let’s take the discussion away from religious topics. Instead, consider the question posed by the OP, using an example that has nothing to do with religion:

Consider some modern “feet of clay” histories. An old, conventional history might portray George Washington as a great hero, scarcely mentioning his failures. Some older commentary lionized leaders, making them out to be more than human. Then, some modern historian comes along and decides to tell us all about Washington’s failures: not merely about his insecurities as a man, but even about his military blunders. We see a young Washington building his “Fort Necessity” as if he had no clue on the topic of the location of forts, we see Washington’s early campaigns and find that it is not too far-fetched to describe them as months of running away from an overwhelmingly superior British army, we see that French assistance played an important role at Yorktown. In the end, we might even be left thinking: “Wow! that Washington was a clown who got lucky!”

Of course, that would be the wrong conclusion to draw. The lionizing was wrong in portraying man as super-man, and the “feet-of-clay” view is wrong by thinking that having flaws is inconsistent with greatness. If a businessman had some business failure along the way, would we would not conclude that he is a bad businessman. A history that lionizes him and only shows his success is incomplete. However, a history that shows all his mistakes can also be wrong in concluding that he just got lucky.

As archetypes, both types of history – the lionizers and the demonizers – share an underlying faulty standard of human behavior where one has to be super-human in order to be judged great. The truth is that human beings are often great, with all their faults and often because of their many mistakes and how they dealt with those mistakes. (Similarly, a historical figure does not have to be an all-out demon, consciously plotting the downfall of humanity, in order to judge him as evil.)

To answer the question in post #1: a thoughtful modern reader can read “both sides” thoughtfully. He can be careful about accepting the conclusions of historians. He should always question what the right standard of judgement ought to be. he should try to dis-aggregate (aka analyse) causes within the people he studies. Men can be bundles of right and wrong premises. A thoughtful reader can focus on analyzing which premises are at work in a particular case, so that he can accept the right premises and reject the wrong premises. And, if men are mixed, how much more mixed are organizations … particularly when they stretch across countries and centuries.

With time, a thoughtful reader will be able to judge some historians to be more objective than others. He can then pick his reading a bit better, and avoid both the lionizers and the demonizers. One might actually agree with the conclusions of one or the other. For instance, one might conclude that Washington was a great general after all, so – in that limited sense – the lionizers had the conclusion right.

There appears to be a modern re-writing by Christian apologists which ridicules claims by people like Voltaire as being (at least) over the top satirical demonization. They point to facts that show progress during the time that the church was powerful, and also to progress sponsored by the church. However, that is like a communist apologist showing how the U.S.S.R. won so many Olympic medals, got the first man into space and so on, without analyzing what aspects and components worked and why. The only useful reason to study history is to understand causation, and that does not come unless one dis-aggregates (i.e. analyzes).

[Trebor]

Interesting tidbit from Timothy Sandefur over at Freespace:

“Belief in God linked experimentally with not thinking”

[Avila]

" I would say that, fundamentally, to be religious means to ascribe supernatural causes to observed phenomena. And since science is concerned with determining the natural causes of observed phenomena, science and religion are necessarily at loggerheads."

No, that’s not “fundamental” at all: Buddhism, for example, doesn’t actually have a deity, and its view of the origins of the universe are similar to the Objectivist position. And, as you’ve noted, Deism proposes a generic God who starts the thing going, so to speak, and then leaves us alone to figure things out. It certainly doesn’t look to supernatural causes for observable phenomena. And if traditonal Christianity (Catholics, the Orthodox)believed what you claim they believed (ascribing supernatural causes to observed phenomena), then there simply wouldn’t be the huge number of Catholics (and Catholic clergy in particular – seismology, for example, was called the “Jesuit science” because of the contributions of that order in the field) who studied the natural world and sought to understand it. It simply wouldn’t happen on such a large scale. Sure, there might be the occasional individual here or there, but you wouldn’t have what did happen: the founding of universities, the building of some churches to be solar observatories as well as places of worship, fields of scientific enquiry dominated by clergy.

I don’t think you understand the implications of the Catholic concept that a rational entity – God – created the universe with ordered, rational laws governing it. To better comprehend the creator, then, it is logical to study and comprehend creation (and to do so is to honor the creator). There is no conflict between religion and science with this view. The historical record supports that assertion.

I think the problem lies with your concept of “religion”. You seek to lump very disparate ideas together by trying to find some common aspect, but it is not possible, unless you broaden the concept so broadly as to denote a set of “guiding principles” or “worldview”. In that expansion, Objectivism would accurately be described as a religion. (Personally, I think it is a kind of religion, as it has its own doctrines, “sacred” books, and a founder who is almost god-like.)

I think your allegiance the the “conflict thesis” biases your view of history. Modern historians (no, not just Christian apologists) have debunked this thesis. You’re still clinging to the history written by the English Reformation and other biased sources.

[emorris1000]

To the OP: You can’t KNOW history, you can just have a probabilistic understanding of it. As for experts, personally I would take them all with a grain of salt. Determining the truth of history is like putting together a puzzle where the pieces are made of wet clay, in the rain. So just understand that history is conjecture and go from there.

I have no idea how a conversation about history got to a conversation about religion and science, but I’ll throw in my 2c. You simply can’t have this conversation until you define your terms.

[DonAthos]

I think the problem lies with your concept of “religion”. You seek to lump very disparate ideas together by trying to find some common aspect, but it is not possible, unless you broaden the concept so broadly as to denote a set of “guiding principles” or “worldview”. In that expansion, Objectivism would accurately be described as a religion. (Personally, I think it is a kind of religion, as it has its own doctrines, “sacred” books, and a founder who is almost god-like.)

I think the problem isn’t with my concept of religion; it seems, rather, that you don’t have any concept of religion from which we can proceed. After all, if you hold that religions have nothing in common – nothing that gives them the particular character of being “religious” – or, as the alternative, that they are only united by things so general as to include “worldviews” such as Objectivism, and etc. – then how could we ever decide what’s true of “religion”?

It makes me wonder, if these “very disparate ideas” don’t have a “common aspect” such that they can be “lumped together” (it is “not possible”)… then how do we even know what is meant by “religion” in the first place? And if you’re unable to distinguish between Objectivism and a religion, then how could I ever convey the substance of my argument, which is about religion and not that which is not?

You see trees, but not the forest.

[Eiuol]

You can’t KNOW history, you can just have a probabilistic understanding of it.

Is the news you watch on TV just a matter of probability? Really, the only thing to talk about is reliability of sources, and how those sources relate. There are a lot of steps involved to complete a puzzle, but difficulty doesn’t imply impossibility of knowledge. Once you have reliable sources, you can about discussing what events really did happen, what is exaggerated, what is ignored. If criminal investigations can be used to objectively determine who committed a crime, history can be figured out the same way.

[Avila]

“I think the problem isn’t with my concept of religion; it seems, rather, that you don’t have any concept of religion from which we can proceed.”

I haven’t proposed any concept of religion. I merely pointed out that your concept: “to be religious means to ascribe supernatural causes to observed phenomena” is inadequate, as it would leave out Buddhism and deism and traditional Christianity, yet these are considered religions.

[DonAthos]

“I think the problem isn’t with my concept of religion; it seems, rather, that you don’t have any concept of religion from which we can proceed.”

I haven’t proposed any concept of religion. I merely pointed out that your concept: “to be religious means to ascribe supernatural causes to observed phenomena” is inadequate, as it would leave out Buddhism and deism and traditional Christianity, yet these are considered religions.

No. You did not “merely” take issue with what I’ve presented. You’ve also made clear that you don’t think there can be any common aspects to “religion” – “it is not possible”:

I think the problem lies with your concept of “religion”. You seek to lump very disparate ideas together by trying to find some common aspect, but it is not possible, unless you broaden the concept so broadly as to denote a set of “guiding principles” or “worldview”. In that expansion, Objectivism would accurately be described as a religion. (Personally, I think it is a kind of religion, as it has its own doctrines, “sacred” books, and a founder who is almost god-like.)

And given that this is your position – either there isn’t any such creature as “religion” or Objectivism must count as one – of course we’ll never have agreement as to what’s true of religion. Or, if you’ve misspoke and you do have a concept of religion that you can propose, perhaps that would be more helpful to subsequent discussion. Otherwise, we’re just treading water.

[Avila]

“No. You did not “merely” take issue with what I’ve presented. You’ve also made clear that you don’t think there can be any common aspects to “religion” – “it is not possible””

Well, I’d like to hear your thoughts as to what might constitute common aspects beyond what you first proposed (which is problematic for the reasons I gave).