David Berlinski, a secular Jew and author of The Devil’s Delusion (a great read, I might add), interviewed himself a couple of years ago here, and had this exchange with himself:
… But why should we take seriously religious beliefs that are lacking in evidence?
DB: We shouldn’t. But asking someone like Richard Dawkins about the evidence for God’s existence is a little like asking a quadruple amputee to run the marathon. The interesting point is elsewhere. There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
… Come again …DB: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
… And this is something that you, a secular Jew, believe? …
DB: What a question! I feel like I’m being interviewed by the Dean at some horrible community college. Do you believe in the university’s mission – that sort of thing. Look, I have no religious convictions and no religious beliefs. What I do believe is that theology is no more an impossible achievement than mathematics. The same rational standards apply. Does the system make sense; does it explain something? Are there deep principles at work. Is it productive?
You can get Berlinski’s new book here. Comments anyone?
This is an interesting argument.
The major problem I have with it is that Berlinski makes the claim that the number 4 even exists in a concrete sense, and that it is something outside of the human mind. I have long thought that numbers and mathematics are simply human constructs (or not necessarily just “human,” as other animals such as dolphins, chimps, and I think even dogs have shown some ability to do math, or at least to count, so perhaps more aptly “constructs of relatively intelligent minds”). When I go to my physics class, I use certain differential equations to model the movements of a spring-mass-dashpot system. But when that system actually acts in reality, the universe doesn’t do out the calculus and then move the system accordingly, the system simply acts, according to natural forces.
The “mathematical objects” Berlinski speaks of do not actually exist, the physical object they model do, but the “mathematical objects” are simply mental conceptualizations derived (I love math puns) from the physical objects.
This is in no way an argument against mathematics. Math is accurate in its portrayal of the physical universe, and thus is extremely useful, integral (man, I crack myself up), in fact, to human society and life, and serve a purpose that could not be served by any other function.
Religion (and particularly theology, IMO) are also simply constructs of the human mind. This, first of all, does not mean that the god(s) they propose actually exist. We have empirical proof for the existence of the physical systems that mathematics model, we do not have such proof for the existence of god. Faced with this argument, many turn to say “well, like mathematics, religion is certainly still useful, so we should preserve it nonetheless.” I would argue, however, that it is not particularly useful. I challenge anyone to name any positive act done by a religious person that could not be done by a non-religious person. I don’t believe there is any.
“that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity”
I think a devil has deluded Berlinski. “devotional abilities” – ESP? telekinesis? transcendental meditation? Comparable to mathematics? Well, my computer is pretty good at math and doesn’t seem to understand me at all – its ESP is zero. This “analogy” is stupid. And his book is too.
“and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.”
Now we are getting somewhere. I wish to conduct some experiments. But I’m having problems writing up my research proposal. The grant approval committee does not seem to like this idea. I can’t convince them that I need money to build a “trap” that will prove that some deity is interacting with a material object. And past studies for “poltergeists” and “prayer affects medical outcomes” have failed, so they’re prejudiced against these ideas.
To One: You are incorrect. There have been numerous scientifically rigorous medical studies that have empirically demonstrated the correlation bewtween prayer and healing. Not dramatic, but statistically significant
So do you suppose then, because the results are not dramatic, that God just picks a couple of the doubtless millions and millions of prayers he receives to answer?
Making the previous statement irrelevant though, the most extensive study ever done on the subject, published in 2006, indicated absolutely no connection whatsoever between prayer and healing. Many of the previous studies done on the subject were poorly executed and did not meet the standards of scientific integrity or rigor, as explained by Michael Shermer.
jjberg, you seem to define existence by physicality. By that definition good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, the rules of logic, and the scientific method do not exist.
jjberg
I propose a nonreligious person is unable to believe one can be forgiven by a God and therefore avoid an eternity in hell.
Be sure I am discussing and not attacking.
First off, we are certainly at odds over whether this is a positive believe. This sort of destroys the point of the debate. Second, I am talking about an earthly act. The argument is often posed that “even if religion is not true, it is still a positive thing because it inspires people to do good things.” So the issue is probably more accurately stated “Name a positive, earthly deed that a religious person can do that could not be done by a nonreligious person.”
Yes I understand your point of view. Quite valid. Let me try to answer, not that you should believe. A believer in Jesus can forgive awful crimes, which most people cannot do. Not that the believer will let the crum out of jail; that would be stupid and unjust. Jesus insists that we be purged of our imperfections before we can enter Heaven. Purgatory is where most of us will reside for a time.
Paul
jjberg
Yes I understand your point of view. Quite valid. Let me try to answer, not that you should believe. A believer in Jesus can forgive awful crimes, which most people cannot do. Not that the believer will let the crum out of jail; that would be stupid and unjust. Jesus insists that we be purged of our imperfections before we can enter Heaven. Purgatory is where most of us will reside for a time.
Paul
JJBerg,
Please define “positive” from an objective standpoint.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Jim says: “There have been numerous scientifically rigorous medical studies that have empirically demonstrated the correlation between prayer and healing.”
No exactly. The correlation is only present when the patient is aware that they are being prayed for. When the patient is unaware of the prayers, there is no correlation. Conversely, merely telling the patient that people are praying for them even if none are, achieves the same correlation.
jjberg,
Please define “non-religious”. I contend atheists just believe in an alternative religion.
“There have been numerous scientifically rigorous medical studies that have empirically demonstrated the correlation between prayer and healing.”
Liar.
Onein6Billion:
“Liar” and “nonsense” are not refutations. Please provide evidence for your views. Personal attacks have no place here and only retard the search for truth.
Thanks,
Frank Turek
Frank. The claim was that there was a correlation between prayer and healing. Jim, who made the claim, either did not understand what he read about the study or he lied. Please see my last post in this thread about what the study actually found.
The power of belief is undisputed – otherwise we wouldn’t have the placebo effect.. and it wouldn’t have a space reserved in every study of a new medicine.
You can then follow with saying that a prayer has no effect if the subject is unaware he/she’s being prayed for.. and banish the effect of belief to being some effect of the mind. Rather than simply retreating in this way – you should realize the indisputable research that has proven that belief is a part of our natural world… it is a part of the system. Once we say ‘system’ we are begging a question… what ‘system’? Where did it derive.. from circumstance? So the verified fact that our mind has an effect on the physical world was an evolutionary positive? Is that really the stance you are willing to take? Reaching doesn’t even begin to describe such ‘scientific’ reasoning.
Belief affects reality.. as placebo’s attest. At times the placebo is more beneficial than the actual drug. So.. that stated, it’s indisputable that a belief as fundamental as a person’s religion has effects on their lives. Depending on the person holding the belief, it can be a positive or a negative effect… but the effect itself can’t be ruled out. Considering this is built into our natural world.. how can science rule out a form of divine intervention – the form of which being that beliefs, to some degree, manifest themselves. The level of which depending on the strength of belief. Can you really feel this aspect of our physical world can be justified by evolution? It is a mystery the same as consciousness itself and other examples which have no evolutionary mechanism for their creation.
Science wants so heartily to not be ‘fooled’, I understand this position – but when we ignore fundamental parts of the human condition and consider them outside our scientific theories and understanding.. such as consciousness as well as the effects of belief on outcomes, when we section these areas off and simply label them ‘unknown’, is it not possible that there is a reason for this mystical quality? Are we not being ‘fooled’ to assume we just need to wait long enough.. and a bigger telescope, a better microscope, will explain these things ‘in due time’.