![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarigwaemirAd Mundo Exteriore,
Richard Dawkins...is simply quite amazing. I disagree with most of his opinions, but I have to say that I have no rebuttals to many of his most convincing arguments. He was speaking on the subject of science and religion, and his basic message was that because science bases its claims for objective truth on the gathering of evidence, while religion bases truth on tradition, authority, revelation, and most of all, (blind) faith, religion is unable to tell us anything meaningful about the reality around us.
I am, of course, a Roman Catholic. I'm also planning on studying evolutionary biology at the genetic and molecular level, which is precisely the field in which Dawkins was such a pioneer. I believe that natural selection is a brilliant and valid scientific theory. I also believe that the universe was created by God.
Dawkins claims that people like me are hypocrites, because our religious sense is based less on a true belief in a personal God who intervenes directly in human lives and more in a sense of wonder and awe at the mysterious beauty of the universe. Our religiosity, he says, is really an "Einsteinian" pantheism, in which God is simply a metaphor for the universe. Like Spinoza, God for us represents the body of laws that govern nature. He is impersonal--in fact, cannot even be called a "He", since it is an abstract, poetic analogy. We only pay lip service to the actual creeds and rituals of religion out of a sense of obligation to tradition, i.e. we're following in our parents' footsteps. Religion, according to Dawkins, is ultimately rooted in supernaturalism, and you can't really be a scientist and believe in that at the same time without running into inconsistency.
I must admit that he's not entirely wrong. I do tend to view God as an impersonal force in my life. I also do think of him mostly in his role as Creator--like Thomas Aquinas, I am most religious when I contemplate the vast order underlying the universe. I sympathize strongly with the pantheists, and Spinoza is one of my favorite philosophers, despite his unorthodox faith. My attachment to the Catholic Church is also part traditional (I come from a Catholic family), part emotional (the austere contemplative nature of Catholic faith appeals to me), and part aesthetic (hey, stained glass windows and Gregorian chants are simply beautiful).
Nevertheless, while I may not necessarily be able to defend my faith just yet, the fact remains that it's fundamental to my understanding of the universe. I can't just simply accept a positivist worldview, that is, that my perceptions really do represent the world as it actually is, without religion. Because I believe in a God, I also am able to believe that the world exists outside of my perceptions, that these objects around me are real not because I sense them but because they exist in and of themselves. Epistemologies alone don't ever really persuade me that solipsism is utterly false--as Kierkegaard pointed out, reason fails at a certain point. At that point, I need a place to start, an axiom, a fundamentally unverifiable assumption, and I choose to place it with God, because then I can reconstruct the universe as I perceive it. And because then, I can be a scientist without doubting science itself.
Dawkins pointed out that even a priori disciplines are based on axioms that have no means of verification other than empirical evidence. Yet that argument itself requires the axiom that empirical evidence represents the world around us--i.e. a positivistic worldview. I admit, many people are capable of accepting positivism without resorting to religion. I don't have an objective argument for why other people should be religious, only a subjective explanation of why I am.
In many ways, I think what Dawkins dislikes so much about religion is its claim to universal truth--he sees it as a restriction on independent thought. I do admit that I myself dislike fundamentalists who turn faith into bigotry. Part of the reason why I really appreciate the St. Paul's parish here at Harvard is because the priest makes no claim to exclusive salvation in his homilies. The prayers of the faithful include prayers for Jews and Muslims--and not trite comments about how they should be made to "see the light" but rather sincere good wishes for the rituals of their faiths. I have reasons for why I am Catholic, but I don't have any for why any of you should be. Nor will I consider my beliefs superior to yours--well, as long as you don't try to insult my religion.
But Dawkins probably will retort that this is a very watery sort of faith, an all-too-easy means of sidestepping the real issue, an escape that masquerades as a reconciliation. Nevertheless, religion for me is something that is very much based on a personal context--it is about what I need in order to coexist with other individuals, what I need to live as part of a community. All I can say is that while I'm always going to accept scientific truths that have been verified with sufficient experimentation or observation, I can't simply just give up religion without feeling like an emotional hypocrite, even if that means that I'm rationally hypocritical.
Besides, without my religiously-inspired, "Einsteinian" pantheistic sense of wonder at the complexity of the universe, I would not have wanted to become a scientist. If I grew up in a non-Catholic family, you would find me going into philosophy or history or even literature. Oh what a conundrum it is. Anyway, I respect Dawkins' intelligence, even if I disagree with his opinions.
It's kind of sad, how much presentation affects how you are received. Dawkins was articulate, polished and very organized. The professor of philosophy from Yale, who was supposed to speak for the other side and defend the compatibility of religion and science was not only nervous and incoherent, but also simply muddled in his thinking. He only strengthened Dawkins' position with his awful attempts at rebuttal. President Summers, whom I will always permanently admire from this point on, was the one who clearly pointed out the weakness in Dawkins' argument, in a particularly well-phrased question. Well, I doubt that Summers was speaking on behalf of religion, but he did keep his head and see through the flawless execution of Dawkins' lecture to the underlying logic of his argument. Dawkins did answer well, but I felt he avoided the issue a little. What a clever man. Anyway, there was another questioner, who apparently studies comparative religions, who also raised a good point, but couched his question in such pretentious and technical language that it was simply self-defeating.
Ironic, somewhat, that the complex psychology behind human interactions is what really drives the persuasive force of Dawkins' argument. Especially when science hopes to transcend such mere psychological tricks in order to achieve the truth. His ability to manipulate the audience was a far stronger source of credibility than his actual logic--not that I'm claiming that he wasn't being logical. I'm just saying that he would not have been so effective if he had said the same things in a much less eloquent fashion in the presence of an unsympathetic audience. Of course, I personally think the better of him for his mastery of such rhetorical "tricks". ^_^
Anyway, I wish I had a copy of The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker now. He's doing signings at the Harvard Bookstore at 4 tomorrow. ::sighs:: It's too bad. He may be a Great Atheist, but he's still a very cool person and a great scientist...I'd stand in line for an autograph, if only I also had a copy of his book.
In other news, rehearsals for the Candlemas concert have begun. I'm getting better at singing harmony! Of course, my ability to remember my part has a strong correlation with the number of times I sing it...after the tenth time, of course I'd sing the alto line correctly. (Unlike the songs we sing during Mass...then, I usually end up alternating between the melody and harmony lines, making for a rather awful performance. -_-) Our hardest piece is a Renaissance motet by Tomas Luis de Victoria, and it's far more complicated than anything I've sung before. And guess what, it'll be in a cappella too. Uh...um...no prior singing experience...only three or four rehearsals before performance...I think I'm screwed. On the other hand, the rest of the repertoire consists of relatively simple carols, so hopefully it won't be so bad. Also, one of the altos who is showing up exclusively for the Candlemas performance is an absolutely fantastic singer (she's in an offical chorus group that actually requires auditions--and therefore talent--as opposed to simple willingness), so I just try to listen to her. ^_^
Hey, you experienced chorus people, any tips on how a newbie like me can try to remember the alto line when singing a rather complicated motet in four-part harmony? Basically try to remember back to the days when you first joined a chorus...probably way back in elementary school. >_> If you can remember that far. <_< ...Tari
Richard Dawkins...is simply quite amazing. I disagree with most of his opinions, but I have to say that I have no rebuttals to many of his most convincing arguments. He was speaking on the subject of science and religion, and his basic message was that because science bases its claims for objective truth on the gathering of evidence, while religion bases truth on tradition, authority, revelation, and most of all, (blind) faith, religion is unable to tell us anything meaningful about the reality around us.
I am, of course, a Roman Catholic. I'm also planning on studying evolutionary biology at the genetic and molecular level, which is precisely the field in which Dawkins was such a pioneer. I believe that natural selection is a brilliant and valid scientific theory. I also believe that the universe was created by God.
Dawkins claims that people like me are hypocrites, because our religious sense is based less on a true belief in a personal God who intervenes directly in human lives and more in a sense of wonder and awe at the mysterious beauty of the universe. Our religiosity, he says, is really an "Einsteinian" pantheism, in which God is simply a metaphor for the universe. Like Spinoza, God for us represents the body of laws that govern nature. He is impersonal--in fact, cannot even be called a "He", since it is an abstract, poetic analogy. We only pay lip service to the actual creeds and rituals of religion out of a sense of obligation to tradition, i.e. we're following in our parents' footsteps. Religion, according to Dawkins, is ultimately rooted in supernaturalism, and you can't really be a scientist and believe in that at the same time without running into inconsistency.
I must admit that he's not entirely wrong. I do tend to view God as an impersonal force in my life. I also do think of him mostly in his role as Creator--like Thomas Aquinas, I am most religious when I contemplate the vast order underlying the universe. I sympathize strongly with the pantheists, and Spinoza is one of my favorite philosophers, despite his unorthodox faith. My attachment to the Catholic Church is also part traditional (I come from a Catholic family), part emotional (the austere contemplative nature of Catholic faith appeals to me), and part aesthetic (hey, stained glass windows and Gregorian chants are simply beautiful).
Nevertheless, while I may not necessarily be able to defend my faith just yet, the fact remains that it's fundamental to my understanding of the universe. I can't just simply accept a positivist worldview, that is, that my perceptions really do represent the world as it actually is, without religion. Because I believe in a God, I also am able to believe that the world exists outside of my perceptions, that these objects around me are real not because I sense them but because they exist in and of themselves. Epistemologies alone don't ever really persuade me that solipsism is utterly false--as Kierkegaard pointed out, reason fails at a certain point. At that point, I need a place to start, an axiom, a fundamentally unverifiable assumption, and I choose to place it with God, because then I can reconstruct the universe as I perceive it. And because then, I can be a scientist without doubting science itself.
Dawkins pointed out that even a priori disciplines are based on axioms that have no means of verification other than empirical evidence. Yet that argument itself requires the axiom that empirical evidence represents the world around us--i.e. a positivistic worldview. I admit, many people are capable of accepting positivism without resorting to religion. I don't have an objective argument for why other people should be religious, only a subjective explanation of why I am.
In many ways, I think what Dawkins dislikes so much about religion is its claim to universal truth--he sees it as a restriction on independent thought. I do admit that I myself dislike fundamentalists who turn faith into bigotry. Part of the reason why I really appreciate the St. Paul's parish here at Harvard is because the priest makes no claim to exclusive salvation in his homilies. The prayers of the faithful include prayers for Jews and Muslims--and not trite comments about how they should be made to "see the light" but rather sincere good wishes for the rituals of their faiths. I have reasons for why I am Catholic, but I don't have any for why any of you should be. Nor will I consider my beliefs superior to yours--well, as long as you don't try to insult my religion.
But Dawkins probably will retort that this is a very watery sort of faith, an all-too-easy means of sidestepping the real issue, an escape that masquerades as a reconciliation. Nevertheless, religion for me is something that is very much based on a personal context--it is about what I need in order to coexist with other individuals, what I need to live as part of a community. All I can say is that while I'm always going to accept scientific truths that have been verified with sufficient experimentation or observation, I can't simply just give up religion without feeling like an emotional hypocrite, even if that means that I'm rationally hypocritical.
Besides, without my religiously-inspired, "Einsteinian" pantheistic sense of wonder at the complexity of the universe, I would not have wanted to become a scientist. If I grew up in a non-Catholic family, you would find me going into philosophy or history or even literature. Oh what a conundrum it is. Anyway, I respect Dawkins' intelligence, even if I disagree with his opinions.
It's kind of sad, how much presentation affects how you are received. Dawkins was articulate, polished and very organized. The professor of philosophy from Yale, who was supposed to speak for the other side and defend the compatibility of religion and science was not only nervous and incoherent, but also simply muddled in his thinking. He only strengthened Dawkins' position with his awful attempts at rebuttal. President Summers, whom I will always permanently admire from this point on, was the one who clearly pointed out the weakness in Dawkins' argument, in a particularly well-phrased question. Well, I doubt that Summers was speaking on behalf of religion, but he did keep his head and see through the flawless execution of Dawkins' lecture to the underlying logic of his argument. Dawkins did answer well, but I felt he avoided the issue a little. What a clever man. Anyway, there was another questioner, who apparently studies comparative religions, who also raised a good point, but couched his question in such pretentious and technical language that it was simply self-defeating.
Ironic, somewhat, that the complex psychology behind human interactions is what really drives the persuasive force of Dawkins' argument. Especially when science hopes to transcend such mere psychological tricks in order to achieve the truth. His ability to manipulate the audience was a far stronger source of credibility than his actual logic--not that I'm claiming that he wasn't being logical. I'm just saying that he would not have been so effective if he had said the same things in a much less eloquent fashion in the presence of an unsympathetic audience. Of course, I personally think the better of him for his mastery of such rhetorical "tricks". ^_^
Anyway, I wish I had a copy of The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker now. He's doing signings at the Harvard Bookstore at 4 tomorrow. ::sighs:: It's too bad. He may be a Great Atheist, but he's still a very cool person and a great scientist...I'd stand in line for an autograph, if only I also had a copy of his book.
In other news, rehearsals for the Candlemas concert have begun. I'm getting better at singing harmony! Of course, my ability to remember my part has a strong correlation with the number of times I sing it...after the tenth time, of course I'd sing the alto line correctly. (Unlike the songs we sing during Mass...then, I usually end up alternating between the melody and harmony lines, making for a rather awful performance. -_-) Our hardest piece is a Renaissance motet by Tomas Luis de Victoria, and it's far more complicated than anything I've sung before. And guess what, it'll be in a cappella too. Uh...um...no prior singing experience...only three or four rehearsals before performance...I think I'm screwed. On the other hand, the rest of the repertoire consists of relatively simple carols, so hopefully it won't be so bad. Also, one of the altos who is showing up exclusively for the Candlemas performance is an absolutely fantastic singer (she's in an offical chorus group that actually requires auditions--and therefore talent--as opposed to simple willingness), so I just try to listen to her. ^_^
Hey, you experienced chorus people, any tips on how a newbie like me can try to remember the alto line when singing a rather complicated motet in four-part harmony? Basically try to remember back to the days when you first joined a chorus...probably way back in elementary school. >_> If you can remember that far. <_< ...Tari
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-20 08:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 05:43 am (UTC)And considering most of the church people are pretty young themselves (student area, you know), I don't know how much they're going to "eat it up"...they'll probably, for all I know, critique us on our pronounciation of German and Latin. (I just had to go to a school where bilinguality, if not trilinguality, was the norm...-_-;;)
...Tari