Here is a quote from Ray Monk’s book on the great philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. I think it is important and necessary for the present dialogical climate:
In his lectures on religious belief he concentrates only on the first part of this conviction– the denial of the necessity to have reasons for religious beliefs. In their rejection of the relevance of the scientific mode of thought, these lectures are of a piece with those on aesthetics. They might be seen as an elaboration of his remark to Drury: ‘Russell and the parsons between them have done infinite harm, infinite harm.’ Why pair Russell and the parsons in the one condemnation? Because both have encouraged the idea that a philosophical justification for religious beliefs is necessary for those religious beliefs to be given any credence. Both the atheist, who scorns religion because he has found no evidence for its tenets, and the believer, who attempts to prove the existence of God, have fallen victim to the ‘other’– to the idol-worship of the scientific style of thinking. Religious beliefs are not analogous to scientific theories, and should not be accepted or rejected using the same evidential criteria.
This is not to negate or affirm either position. It is only to say that the same criteria cannot be used by both to negate or affirm either position.
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
Excellent quote, thanks!
I’ve thought for a while that many people’s loss of faith is in large part due to a belief in modernism, thinking that the scientific method can be applied to everything.
That seems well and good as long as we’re discussing strictly personal beliefs; but religion often writes our laws and forms our social norms, and the only foundation we can possibly agree on is our shared observations of the world.
What’s revelation to one is hearsay to another, to paraphrase Thomas Paine.
i agree rob. personal beliefs are one thing. the ramifications thereof another.
Truth is more than physicality and factuality.
Which means that physicality and factuality are less than the truth.
“Religious beliefs are not analogous to scientific theories, and should not be accepted or rejected using the same evidential criteria.”
He’s wrong. Religion is not analogous to science, despite its well documented relentless attempts to make itself so throughout history. However, like science, religion offers explanations for the the universe and our existence. Why we should not use the same evidential criteria for determining the truth or validity of religious clams as we would with scientific claims (or ANY claims)is not sufficiently explained and Wittgenstein cannot defend such a statement without resorting to mystical woo-infused excuses. Religions make extraordinary claims, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.
Spelling corrections:
“clams” should be “claims” and “requires” should be “require”.
Excuse the typos, writing from the wife’s notebook on a hotel bed without my glasses. Hate tiny keyboards…
TGM: my reading of Wittgenstein would lead me to understand that he would concur with you… that the claims of religion are not valid based on certain criteria.
Additional…
Wittgenstein makes an appeal for religion to be given a special pass. Assertions that religious claims should be treated differently from others are simply fueled by the desire to evade and obfuscate. When pressed for an answer, the best one can come up with is “Because I said so”.
“Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.”
@NP,
“the claims of religion are not valid based on certain criteria.”
Yes, but his answer is to give religion a special dispensation by asserting that the same criteria should not be used for both science and religion when determining validity of claims. Why should that be so? Why should we set aside our ability to think critically merely because someone says we should?
i’m not sure about the “special pass”. that’s not my reading of W.. he was quite critical of religion and especially christianity and the church. the point he makes is that religious feeling, etc., is not measurable by scientific thought, with which I would agree. although now we are discovering that there is in the brain something called the “g-spot” or “God spot”, which, when stimulated, creates mystical religious feelings and experiences. i would agree that thoughts and religious feeling are basically organic somehow and that we need to understand this.
@NP,
I can only respond to the particular passage you quoted as I am not an expert in Wittgenstein. Taken on its own, I find this statement to read:
“You may question up to this point, but no further, for beyond this point lies religion and it is not possible to understand religion by the same means you use to determine the state of the universe about you. Religion is off limits.”
When you say “religion is off limits” I take you to mean that it is too holy to be touched. I wouldn’t take that as W’s meaning. Rather, he would say that there are some things that science cannot grasp or understand, as in beyond its scope. Also, I think he would say that there are some things that religion should not attempt to state or control.
@TGM – I, too, think you misunderstand the point. He’s not saying that religion is “off limits” or “gets a free pass”. He’s saying religious feelings are not scientifically identifiable. Similarly, the reason I prefer a cheeseburger over nachos one day, while the next I prefer the nachos is not identifiable.
@del mar,
“He’s saying religious feelings are not scientifically identifiable. Similarly, the reason I prefer a cheeseburger over nachos one day, while the next I prefer the nachos is not identifiable.”
Not identifiable? Says who? I get it. I know what’s being said, but the “god of the gaps” explanation doesn’t work for me. What we cannot explain now may easily be explained or understood in the future.
just to add to the discussion: i might say that romantic love is “off limits” to science. that is, it is not measurable or explainable or subject to scientific investigation. however, that being said, science tries to understand it as something that is real. but i’m not sure scientific investigation will ever “get” it. perhaps it is the same with religious sense (not religion, but an individual’s religious sensibilities). scientific investigation might not ever “get” it. but neither should one with a religious sensibility claim that the object of his beliefs are scientifically provable.
Okay,I follow you. I’m just making a distinction between “might not” and “cannot”. I’m not sure that’s too fine a point to just gloss over. If I don’t make allowances for “might not” then I’m being a hypocrite of the highest degree.
@TGM – If you equate it with the “god of the gaps” nonsense, then I’m not sure you do get it. Scientific exploration may indeed one day explain all observable aspects of the universe. Given enough time, I am confident it will. However, scientific exploration is limited to that which is observable. The process of personal subjective valuation is not observable by our sensory perception capabilities.
@del mar,
Nonsense? Hardly. Not observable? Really? Not ever? How do you know this to be true? You speak with such certainty.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions” – Jefferson
Similarly, I think the only thing being said here is that the investigative powers of science reach claims only, and not beliefs.
Sometimes I get the sense that this was the reason the Tetragrammaton was not to be pronounced, and why Gnostics believed you could know something of God but couldn’t directly teach it to anyone. If only the dominant religions of our time worked that way we’d be in better shape. Then again, if they did, they wouldn’t have become the dominant religions.
TGM – You think “god of the gaps” isn’t nonsense?
@del mar,
“TGM – You think “god of the gaps” isn’t nonsense?”
Yes, that’s why I brought it up. Apparently there was a miscommunication. The way you wrote your comment indicated that you thought my reference to the god of the gaps was itself nonsense.
TGM – Let me ask it another way? Why do an atheist and a theist come to different conclusions about theism?
Re the scientific method, what about the decline effect? It would appear that the reliability of the scientific method is romanticized, and has risen to the level of mythology (“mythology” not meaning it isn’t necessarily true, but that it’s become something culturally bigger–become, in effect, a metanarrative.)
@del mar,
Can you define what you perceive those conclusions to be?
@del mar, if I may: One attempts to vet his beliefs about the supernatural through observation, and he rejects it as wrong or otherwise pointless. The other doesn’t find it necessary to examine those beliefs, and they survive.
@Alden, I did a quick google of the decline effect. Could you explain further? I think most people acknowledge there are limits to science, it’s an approach that can be improved, not a fixed result.
@Rob, I’m no expert, but there’s an interesting article on it here: http://tinyurl.com/2cjuwqm (The New Yorker). Basically, things that were once an accepted scientific fact are now unprovable, or at least get inconsistent results. This presents some problems for Popper’s notion of falsification, and may just support Hume’s point that cause and effect is not predictive of any future results.
In any event, it’s interesting.
@ All: I take issue with two things in this discussion. First, the identification of a singular scientific method. There are many; Mathematics proceeds very differently than Astronomy proceeds very differently than biology, etc. I don’t mean to be a pedant, but if you want to make blanket statements of certain kinds, you ought to be a little more specific. E.g., Alden, the “decline effect” applies to a certain type of observation-induction based experimental science. It may cast doubt on some aspects of this, but the attempt to associate it with cause-effect itself (a whole other logical matter I won’t get into) is quite misguided–basic tenets of physics, say, are pretty untouched by this “effect.” (Leaving aside quantum physics).
The “inaccessible to science” debate suffers deeply from misunderstandings of this type. For some (I suspect Rob above of something like this), science simply means a rational (eep-frightening word to use) understanding of the world in the broadest sense, or the process thereof. What specific method employed, you’ll note, fades away when looked at in this way; we can tweak our methods (Some we have are pretty good), but what matters is the goal.
Wittgenstein (At some points, at least) was committed to an idea of language wherein to talk about, say, God only made sense within a certain referential context–the “form of life” of the believer (or non-believer). This separates certain elements of belief from factual statements, e.g., God created the world in 7 days. To ask “does God exist” isn’t a question at all like “does the sun exist” in the basic, distinct existential sense, i.e., independent of anything I know or have experienced. It draws on the web of experiences, concepts and understandings as I have lived it, and as I can communicate it (this last is important) to those who are similarly situated in terms of experience, concepts, language–they play the same “language game.” Thus, you can say “I don’t believe in God” and I can say “I believe in God” and we aren’t contradicting each-other, so long as we are deploying the concepts within different conceptual webs; to create a terrible example, I could say “I am rich” because I am currently winning at Monopoly, and you could say “You are poor” because I’m a homeless, unemployed university student, without contradiction.
scottc: thanks for your contribution. yes, it is difficult, in so few words, to convey a thought. this is why such forums are good and necessary. i think continued deconstruction of what is said is crucial.
I’d just like to add one other concern about the discussion:
The idea that “critical thinking” and “the scientific method”/experimental epistemology are synonymous.
Let’s please at least keep our a priori/a posteriori, induction/deduction distinctions intact.
@ScottC: I think I follow you; but if so, then that’s what I alluded to earlier. We could all “know” things and that’s fine- I can’t disagree when you say “I know God exists” because what you call God might be YHWH, or Spinoza’s god, or love, or yourself.
Using language that way doesn’t seem to communicate much and makes it virtually impossible to have meaningful discussion. If that’s not so, I’m interested in why not. If the answer is “read more Wittgenstein”, I’d definitely consider it.
Personally, I’m not interested in disagreeing with beliefs. What really matters to me is when people say “My God created the world in 7 days 6,000 years ago, therefore evolution is wrong, and we should teach creationism in our schools” or “My God says atheists are fools, so they shouldn’t be allowed to hold office”. At those points, I think rational inquiry and the scientific process are the only tools available for finding agreement- assuming, I suppose, that agreement should matter.
For me, yes, rationalism is the way I try to approach the world; and part of that is recognizing that I can’t/won’t always be rational, or have good information, and that I have biases. I don’t think I’ve conflated rationalism and science, but I do think one grows out of the other.