The kind hearted spirit has already probed the question of our "starting point" definition in his entry so I'll keep mine simple and hopefully in line with the intent. What follows is a self description of what I believe and perhaps who I am at this point in time. Hopefully it provides better context and depth to the opinions, questions, and ideas that I will raise in this conversation.
I crave knowledge.
I have a curiosity I've never been able to fully satisfy and a mind I've never been able to shut off. I've spent my life as an education driven by the pursuit of knowledge and experience. I like to know not only the what but also the how and whenever I can the why. I'm not a scientist by trade but I believe my base thought process to be in tune with the very definition of one. I believe in reason and logic. I believe in science and an understanding of cause and effect. As much as I am fascinated by scientific insight into the world around us I am equally drawn to the complexities of man. History, culture, and psychology have always been choice sweets in the candy store of my mind.
I also believe in God.
I was raised in a Christian home and have had exposure to many of the denominations that are under the Christianity umbrella. Throughout my life I've been able to learn much about other religions from around the world and be exposed to a broad spectrum of experiences and philosophies. I am a man of faith that believes in science. To this point the author has put forward that I can not be both and yet be true. That they are not only opposite but in opposition. Of course, this drew my interest to his book which in turn has led to this blog.
This raises the third part of me relevant for this conversation. I believe in change. Change not only as an option but a necessity for moving forward. A person can better themselves and it is to that goal I strive. So with an open mind I step forward on this thought journey hoping the destination is a better me.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Eudaimon's "starting point"
Well, we haven't even started, and already a controversy. . . what is a "starting point?" At the time that we encounter someone's perspective on "truth," we are actually at a "point," but it is only "starting" in the sense of going forward. That point of "new departure" (for this example, reading and discussing Dawkins' book) will, with each subsequent thought and discussion, leave us somewhere "further along"-- and from there, perhaps we're at another "starting point." The point of agreement is perhaps that as "seekers of truth," we realized that we want to be farther along "our path" tomorrow than we are today. The challenge, of course, is whether we are "better" today than yesterday. . . its easy to see how this could bog down in semantic soup, and we will probably struggle as we go along with definitions-- which is part of the fun!
Back to my "starting point:" I have something in common with the author, in that he and I spent our undergraduate years (not together!) cutting our scientific eyeteeth on the works of Nikolas Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz, studying animal behavior. R.D., I believe, was into wasps and birds; I, on the other hand, studied rats on their little wheels. The '70's, when Tinbergen won his Nobel Prize, were a hotbed of "research" and conjecture about something that came to be known as sociobiology: in a nutshell, how and why behavior could be transmitted along the line of Darwinian evolution. Those were heady times for young, impressionable college students who acted like animals anyway; I remember, though, that we even then had a hard time finding "believable" explanations for altruistic behavior (I suspect we will come back to this at some point). The impact of ethology (study of animal behavior, particularly within an evolutionary framework) was significant for those of us, like myself, who fancied themselves to be scientists, especially as it relates to an endpoint which R.D. has decided to make his ideological framework as well: that "reality" is limited to that which science, through detection, categorization, and rational explanation, discovers "truth" only through the utility of sensual (i.e., sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste) data. This very powerful idea, which arose as early as Aristotle but found its voice in the Enlightenment, continues to be elevated by the concurrent (linked?) and inexorable signs of "progress" which have paralleled the growth of scientific knowledge and its reputation for imparting "truth" first, to its disciples and secondly, to the rest of mankind.
Having been a "scientist" (not in the common modern view of white-coat lab guy, but one who has studied and made his living engulfed in the fruits of its labors) for some 35 years now, I think I have a pretty good handle on where R.D. is coming from, and where he thinks he is going, (and I've only read the Preface so far) from a scientific point of view.
My points of departure from him, however, are (at least in my opinion) quite profound, and will become more apparent as these discussions ensue. To illustrate one of them, let me quote R.D. from the third paragraph of the Preface, the first of what he calls his "consciousness-raising messages." It has bearing on my "starting point," so bear with me. . .
"You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." I can agree with everything in that statement except the first word: "YOU" (i.e., me). Laying aside all of the ramifications of the difficulty measuring (like a good scientist would do) those descriptors, I can say that I could not be those things as an atheist, because I tried it, and it just didn't fly for me. At some later post, I'll share the prevailing existential philosophical journey of the 20th century which I traversed, and I can say without a doubt it would only have left me with what Sartre called "Le Nausee." More to come. . .
This post is starting to define verbose, so I'll leave by commenting on another quote from our source: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Well, at least he's not going to try to "trick" us into being happy and fulfilled! I must give him credit for something that I'm sure contributes mightily to his success: he is passionate about it! But, at the end of the day, he puts his pants on like me, unzips his fly like me, and will use the same senses I use in the same small snibbet of time on this planet to try to figure these things out. So, let the dialogue begin: I think my starting point has already shifted a little!!
Back to my "starting point:" I have something in common with the author, in that he and I spent our undergraduate years (not together!) cutting our scientific eyeteeth on the works of Nikolas Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz, studying animal behavior. R.D., I believe, was into wasps and birds; I, on the other hand, studied rats on their little wheels. The '70's, when Tinbergen won his Nobel Prize, were a hotbed of "research" and conjecture about something that came to be known as sociobiology: in a nutshell, how and why behavior could be transmitted along the line of Darwinian evolution. Those were heady times for young, impressionable college students who acted like animals anyway; I remember, though, that we even then had a hard time finding "believable" explanations for altruistic behavior (I suspect we will come back to this at some point). The impact of ethology (study of animal behavior, particularly within an evolutionary framework) was significant for those of us, like myself, who fancied themselves to be scientists, especially as it relates to an endpoint which R.D. has decided to make his ideological framework as well: that "reality" is limited to that which science, through detection, categorization, and rational explanation, discovers "truth" only through the utility of sensual (i.e., sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste) data. This very powerful idea, which arose as early as Aristotle but found its voice in the Enlightenment, continues to be elevated by the concurrent (linked?) and inexorable signs of "progress" which have paralleled the growth of scientific knowledge and its reputation for imparting "truth" first, to its disciples and secondly, to the rest of mankind.
Having been a "scientist" (not in the common modern view of white-coat lab guy, but one who has studied and made his living engulfed in the fruits of its labors) for some 35 years now, I think I have a pretty good handle on where R.D. is coming from, and where he thinks he is going, (and I've only read the Preface so far) from a scientific point of view.
My points of departure from him, however, are (at least in my opinion) quite profound, and will become more apparent as these discussions ensue. To illustrate one of them, let me quote R.D. from the third paragraph of the Preface, the first of what he calls his "consciousness-raising messages." It has bearing on my "starting point," so bear with me. . .
"You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." I can agree with everything in that statement except the first word: "YOU" (i.e., me). Laying aside all of the ramifications of the difficulty measuring (like a good scientist would do) those descriptors, I can say that I could not be those things as an atheist, because I tried it, and it just didn't fly for me. At some later post, I'll share the prevailing existential philosophical journey of the 20th century which I traversed, and I can say without a doubt it would only have left me with what Sartre called "Le Nausee." More to come. . .
This post is starting to define verbose, so I'll leave by commenting on another quote from our source: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Well, at least he's not going to try to "trick" us into being happy and fulfilled! I must give him credit for something that I'm sure contributes mightily to his success: he is passionate about it! But, at the end of the day, he puts his pants on like me, unzips his fly like me, and will use the same senses I use in the same small snibbet of time on this planet to try to figure these things out. So, let the dialogue begin: I think my starting point has already shifted a little!!
An introduction
Oscar Wilde said:
"The Pure and Simple TRUTH is rarely pure and never simple."
I believe this is no excuse for not pursuing it and I'd like to use this Blog to track that pursuit.
For the first topic, hopefully not the last, we've decided on the question of wether or not there is a God as proposed by the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Format wise, I'm not sure how this will work as a blog. The desire is that the blog can carry a conversation type feel between the editors and anyone else wishing to join in. My mental picture is a friendly fire side chat. The God Delusion conversation itself is currently intended to follow the general format below but is free to change if needed as conversations tend to do.
"The Pure and Simple TRUTH is rarely pure and never simple."
I believe this is no excuse for not pursuing it and I'd like to use this Blog to track that pursuit.
For the first topic, hopefully not the last, we've decided on the question of wether or not there is a God as proposed by the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Format wise, I'm not sure how this will work as a blog. The desire is that the blog can carry a conversation type feel between the editors and anyone else wishing to join in. My mental picture is a friendly fire side chat. The God Delusion conversation itself is currently intended to follow the general format below but is free to change if needed as conversations tend to do.
- Explain the starting points of the editors of this blog. What beliefs, concepts, and intent we have coming in.
- Talk about what can/can not be assumed about what beliefs, concepts, and intent the author of the book has.
- Break down the book and discuss it in sections dealing with each individually. These arguements, questions, and comments may be structured however needed
- Discuss the work as a whole and it's effect
-P.S. Truth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)