Tim,
Thanks for explaining further. I think I perhaps understand a bit
better now, though it still is going to take a while to answer all of
your questions, I think and perhaps people on the list can let us know
whether they would prefer we continue off-list with the discussion? I
thought I'd just send out this response and take on one portion of the
discussion- back to the question of "why" amd "how". Upon further
reflection I realized that your pushing that issue was in fact a useful
tact because I think the bottomline is how science and religion address
the "why" questions, especially the deepest ones about "why we are here"
and "why we are different from other animals (although maybe that in
fact is how)?" Science would say we are here to pass on our genes and
because there was a niche that could be filled by an intelligent
hominid. And that we are not significantly different from other
animals. Religion, I believe, would say that we are profoundly
different from animals and that we are here because we were specially
created and that there are other, deeper spiritual purposes associated
with our existence. In your last paragraph I think you are asking what
is wrong with the answers that science provides? For some people there
is nothing wrong with that- Richard Dawkins for instance doesn't have a
problem with that being the total of human existence. For many, though,
there is a deeper spiritual need and a belief in higher spiritual
purpose. Many feel the presence of a higher being (or perhaps gods) and
many have the same assurance that the words of holy books are completely
correct. And doctors, for one, do say that those who find dying
easiest, who pass away with the least amount of fear and clinging to
life are those who do have that deep assurance, who have lived their
lives convinced that there is a higher reason for being and a spiritual
life after death. By the same token, findings that during prayer, the
moment when people say they experience a connection with a supreme
being, there are physiological changes in the brain that some
neurologists say shows religious feelings are physical. Rather than
draw a conclusion (and especially because in my own fuzzy logic there is
really no conflict between the findings of science and religious
beliefs)
I wonder how others feel about this sort of conclusion, and what makes
them comfortable? Again, I would be happy to continue such a discussion
off list but wanted first to sort out my conversation with Tim.
Best, Nina S-R
>>> [log in to unmask] 07/02/05 06:21PM >>>
Sorry you took my thoughts and questions as largely semantical
trickery
and word smithing. Not my intent. I was simply curious about some of
what you and Mark said. I'm questioning from a stance of curiosity to
further my own learning/understanding and not authoritarian challenge.
And from the length of your response to just one of my questions, I'm
not sure how hollow they were (;] sorry, couldn't resist).
From what you've said, if time allows you down the road, I think
you'll
have to answer my question about how it seems you're dividing reality
into two for me to follow your line of thought. From following your
all's thoughts, that seems to be the roadblock for me. To some degree
I
get what you and Mark are saying about science's purpose being what it
is and nothing more, but to my mind it's impossible to disconnect one
part of reality from another and say they don't influence one another
(for example, our understanding of physical reality has no bearing on
our ethical, emotional/intellectual and/or spiritual reality). To
respond/question what you've said so far would be to say the same
things
basically, other than two more thoughts that maybe you could include
in
your own thoughts if you respond further.
I would lump the ethics in with the quandary about splitting the
physical world versus emotional/spiritual world for me. I don't see
how
one's learning based on science can't influence one's ethics. I could
no
doubt find examples of how any metaphysical basis for reality has been
misused to make poor ethical decisions, but I would argue that however
one views reality has a very strong influence on their ethics, whether
that person is aware of it or not (and maybe I should say that I'm
speaking of philosophical ethics as far as simply one's code of
behavior). People who believe in science use it to define reality for
themselves (at least, natural/physical reality). A large part of
ethics
is involved with human interaction with the natural world, so your
natural (scientific) understanding of that reality with influence
those
ethical decisions (even if you split natural reality from
emotional/spiritual/intellectual reality). I almost feel like I'm
talking in circles, but does what I'm driving at make sense (even if
you
don't buy it)?
And your assertion that science can only answer "why" questions to a
certain degree is interesting to me. Is there perhaps no "deeper"
answer
to why we're here than to simply continue living (pass on our genes,
as
you say)? What's wrong with that, other than perhaps a bruise to our
collective ego? I guess I'm wondering if science isn't capable of
providing as deep an answer as is possible, but we're not exactly
eager
to accept it?
Thanks for sharing your own story; I found it very appropriate.
tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Nina Stoyan-Rosenzweig [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 4:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; Tim Gaddie
Subject: Re: For those interested in evolution AND Intelligent Design
..
.
A quick answer (I hope) to your first point, and then I hope to get to
the others later, if I have time. If you want to nit pick, to try
and
pick apart everything being said, then yes, you can wheedle a
construction of how and why to problematize anything brought before
you.
That exercise is, I believe, however, extremely hollow and simply
both
a clever way of playing with words and not useful. And a distraction
that ignores the meat of the issue. Sure you can twist it to say that
science talks about the why of hunger. And you can use religion to
say
how the world was created. But at their core, the approaches are
entirely different. Science is a discipline with a specific goal and
no, it does not have an implicit ethics. It is meant to be an
objective, unemotional study of natural phenomenon that does not
contain
any ethical content. It simply is a means by which people test
hypothesis and learn about the world. What is done with the answers,
how these are applied, comes from outside science. And when
scientists
develop ethics they have to draw on culture, not science. That is
obviously difficult and it is difficult if not impossible to separate
emotions from science. But it is the goal. And many of our biggest
problems have come when people overstep the bounds of what science can
do and attempt to apply science to solving social problems because it
is
unfitted for ethical dilemmas. For a long time, especially at the
beginning of the century, people such as the Progressives, put huge
faith in science as the arbiter of social problems. but when they
applied it believing it had all the answers they developed programs
like
eugenics, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. For centuries,
religion defined ethics. But in the 19th c religious based societal
ethics became difficult to reconcile with a world composed of multiple
religions, and religion no longer, for instance, defined medical
ethics.
In fact, one of our problems today is that science creates
technologies
but does not tell us how to use them- so our ethics have not caught up
with our science(and ethics boards at hospitals have some scientists,
but ethicists are by and large drawn from the ranks of those with
religious training, lawyers, and those trained specifically in ethics).
One only need consider the end of life issues that capture national
attention to see that science- and technology- provide us with
possibilities and not with answers. One only need spend some little
time in a medical school and hospital to see that scientific medicine,
which offers technical fixes, does not answer peoples' religious and
spiritual needs. So people turn to alternative medicine because those
practices have a spiritual- and social- component built into them.
There are some scientists who argue that science and scientific
discovery do contain and provide room for the sense of wonder that has
been mentioned on the list as being associated with spirituality and
religion- if anyone is interested, Richard Dawkins (evolutionary
biologist who wrote a classic evolutionary biology text The Selfish
Gene) wrote a book called Unweaving the Rainbow in which he tries to
show that you don't need spirituality if you have science.
And to get back to the issue of why and how- science does not have an
implicit ethics- it is meant to be objective and value neutral. And
while you can if you wish manipulate the questions of How does hunger
work to why do we get hungry the why questions at issue are Why are we
here? Why do we think about why we are here? Why do we care for
others
and why do we care about ethical issues? Why is the earth here? Why
do
we think? Science can answer such questions at a certain level- we
think because axons fire messages, we care about ethical issues
because
we are programmed to live in relative harmony so we can survive to
pass
along our genes. (that would actually be the way Richard Dawkins
looks
at these questions). But not the real why questions where we turn to
religion to find out our purpose in life. And religion may say how
the
earth came to be but those answers generally are allegories, are
stories
embedded in a larger ethical framework.
Perhaps (I hope) is not out of place to say here that I am an
historian
of science creating a medical humanities and narrative medicine
program
at a medical school as well as an archives. I teach history of
medicine
and my major interests are in evolutionary biology, eugenics,
environmental history, and a variety of questions related to medical
history. I have long been interested in history and biology, and for
a
time believed I loved biological research-I spent years doing field
and
laboratory research on physiology, behavioral evolution,
endocrinology,
as well as working on various conservation projects in zoos. I was
working on getting my PhD in biology and realized that despite my
background in biology the way in which scientists NEED to look at the
world, at wildlife, at animals, was not the way I wanted to look at it.
I was not an objective viewer of nature but was emotionally involved
in
it- and enjoyed that involvement. So I ended up with a masters in
biology rather than a PhD, and went on to a history graduate program
because I found I was more interested in the structure of science and
scientific discourse, how that structure is shaped by culture than in
actually doing it. Being a scientist meant focusing my intellectual
approach in ways I did not want to do every day. I love science and
remain in touch with the literature, and know that the form of
critical
thinking inherent in developing and testing hypotheses is valuable to
me- full time science demands a mind set that is not my way of looking
at the world.
In short, the focused objective stance that does not try to say why
something works as it does- what it means, why it is there- is
valuable
to me, but not a hat I want to wear at all times. On the other hand,
I
definitely respect and honor those who can and do maintain that sort
of
stance as scientists.
Best, Nina
>>> [log in to unmask] 07/02/05 4:46 PM >>>
A few points:
"From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Nina Stoyan-Rosenzweig
... But the bottom line is that the entire structure of their
discipline,
the way that science addresses problem solving means that it is
entirely
different from religions. Science addresses how- religion addresses
why."
So are you saying, Nina, that a scientist couldn't tell me WHY I'm
hungry, and a Judea-Christian couldn't say HOW the world came to be?
(We'll leave the ultimate truth of either answer outside this
conversation.) It sounds a bit like you're speaking more narrowly
about
relating ethics/morality to religion and/or science. Religion doesn't
have a monopoly on ethics. If you're a strict scientist, following no
religion, then you're ethics have to be based on something. Most folks
base their ethics on how they perceive reality. Most scientists base
their view of reality on science, so why can't science answer why?
Again, perhaps science cannot yet satisfactorily answer some "why"
questions, but that doesn't mean it can't. Why shouldn't I kill
someone,
because as a scientist I know that I am one of many organisms that
exist
in a social context, upon which our survival depends. It's not in my
interest to kill another human (or most other things for that matter).
That's an ethical solution based on what I can observe and test in the
natural world. It answers "why."
I'll agree with you that science and religions have a very different
PROCESS for how they answer some fundamental questions, but I'll
differ
with you on whether they are trying to answer the same questions. Why
do
we care about how the universe began--about the Big Bang? Isn't it at
least partially because we're simply curious about where we came from?
Aren't religious creation myths trying to answer the same question,
for
really the same reason (if one among many reasons)? And the Big Bang
theory tells us HOW the universe came about; don't religions do the
same
thing. Maybe I'm just not getting your point?
From Nina: "...People can turn to a variety of means of speculating
about the meaning of scientific discoveries, they can explore the
sense
of wonder that the universe and its laws arouses in their heart and
soul. But when they do so they are moving into an entirely different
realm of human endeavor. They are going from science to religion."
I find your second to last sentence from the quote a bit paradoxical.
If
you believe in science, shouldn't it be capable of explaining
everything
(even if we aren't capable of following the science ourselves... yet)?
How can you have the natural (scientific) world on one hand and the
emotional/spiritual world on the other? It's all the same
world/reality
isn't it? Unless you do have a religious belief that humans are
something other than part of the natural world, everything about us is
a
part of that natural world, including our thoughts, our emotions, and
our "spirits," if such a thing exists (I don't buy it, but a lot of
folks do, and it's a nice idea). Therefore, all should be explainable
by
science. We just can't do it yet. It seems like if you try to separate
our reality into two realms as you're wanting to do, you're on as
shaky
ground as the ID'ers (just in different ways and on different topics).
And on to the next:
" From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
Behalf Of Mark Janzen
... Science is simply a logical exploration of what is..."
Another way of saying "what is" is "reality." Add any title you want
in
the place of "science, and you have a nicely precise definition of
Metaphysics (going back to an earlier thought of mine). Sorry this was
a
perfect situation to use someone else's thought to make my own point.
From Mark: "... It [science] provides understanding and utility within
the physical world, but it completely ignores anything that can not be
understood through testing and observation."
I'll tie in my last line of thought with this thought of yours, Mark.
If
you're basing your perception of reality on a process that simply
ignores what it can't (currently) test and observe, isn't that a poor
system for explaining your reality? Again, like Nina, you seem to
imply
that there are two worlds we're experiencing simultaneously. The one
we
can test and observe and some other world we cannot. Don't you think
there are a lot of things we cannot currently test and/or observe, but
of which we're aware? Do you really think science should just ignore
those phenomena? Again, I have more faith that science is capable of
explaining everything; it's just a matter of us learning enough that
we
can do the test and observation you propose.
If science isn't the complete tool for understanding reality that I
think it is, then isn't it as ultimately useless as religious myths?
At
least as far as enabling humans to fully explore and understand their
reality? And what is the point really of science, what's its "telos"?
I
understand that the scientific process itself is neutral to an
ultimate
end, but would that process exist if we didn't have a goal in mind?
Are
scientists just doing they're thing because the process is there so
they
had best follow it? Or are they doing it because they are searching
for
something? Kinda like religions are searching for something.
Difference
is the neutral process of testing on one hand (science) and some
process
of divinely gifted knowledge on the other (religion).
What do you think?
tim
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message
should
read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
