This is a beautiful essay and it says that I have been thinking, only it articulates it much better than I could have done.
My only quibble is that where the essay says Christian, it would have been preferable to say Judeo-Christian since the referenced concepts were first in the Hebrew Bible.
By the way, I am an MIT alum and to say that I am furious about your treatment there would be a considerable understatement. I think that it was a fundamental betrayal of the things that make MIT what it was (hate to put it in the past tense). I happen to agree with you on DEI, but that is irrelevant. Even if I disagreed with you, it was a terrible thing.
A valiant effort at defending the view that science and religion are compatible, though I confess to not agreeing with any of it (no problem, a diversity of opinion is good!).
Just for starters, I've never understood the claim that science cannot deal with "why?" questions. Why did the elephant head towards the water hole? Because it was thirsty. I don't see anything unscientific or non-scientific about that.
And just for seconds, on the five axioms that "can't be proved" but have to "be assumed" and "taken on faith": Things like: "entire physical universe obeys certain laws and these laws do not change with time."
But the extent to which the universe show regularities and "obeys laws", and whether they change with time, these are all observables. Indeed, that's how we arrive at "laws", by observing the universe and seeing how it behaves. If something seems (as far as we can tell) to hold in all times and places then we call it a "law". Further, we can test these ideas by using them to (for example) predict solar eclipses and see if the predictions come true.
None of this is just assumed and taken on faith, it's based on observations and regularly tested. It's a product of science, not an untestable assumption. Science can test any and all of its component ideas simply by asking "so how would things be if that wasn't true?" and then seeing which fits the observations better.
And, thirdly, yes, there is a reason to suppose that our thoughts about the world have some resemblance to the "truth", and that is that we need only suppose that, in evolving our brains, natural selection will have tended to favour true ideas over untrue ones. Which is indeed true.
The entire article supposes a "foundational" view of science, that it must rest on un-questionnable assumptions. This is a faulty view, the truer picture being the "Neurath's raft" or "Quinean web" view, where science is continually testing all parts of its world view.
Coel, if you are trying to arrive at laws of nature, you are assuming that laws of nature actually exist. If you are using your observations to arrive at those laws, then you are assuming the reliability of your observations. You are also assuming the laws do not change between one experiment and another. If you are using a process of reasoning and deduction to arrive at a theory of natural selection, then you are assuming the reliability of that process of reasoning and deduction to start with.
Hi Daniel, your comment presumes a "foundational" view of science (and indeed of epistemology), such that the edifice of science is built on assumptions and axioms which can't be questioned (in the same way that a building's foundations can support the roof but the roof cannot support the foundations).
This is (in my opinion) a wrong view of science. Rather, science is iterative. We can go back and examine the assumptions. Instead of the roof/foundations analogy, we have Neurath's raft analogy: the collection of ideas, the "raft", is afloat, but we can examine and replace any plank by standing on the other planks. Any idea or "axiom" of science can be examined, and replaced by a better idea, we just can't do that for all of them at once.
The whole ensemble is then verified by seeing whether it works. Do predictions of solar eclipses come true? Does technology that is based on science (such as iPhones) work? If so, this validates the ensemble, including the "axioms".
So: "... you are assuming that laws of nature actually exist". No, we are just observing nature and trying to understand it. We *observe* that there are regularities, so for example we observe the cycle of day and night. We describe how things are. If a description seems to hold everywhere and always, we call it a "law".
So some things change with time (e.g. temperature and atmospheric pressure), but we find, empirically, that if we take the product of velocity and mass, then that seems to always add up to the same. So we postulate a "law" of "conservation of momentum".
"If you are using your observations to arrive at those laws, then you are assuming the reliability of your observations."
But we're continually testing the ensemble. Do iPhones work, can we design computer chips that work, can we predict eclipses? If there were fundamental errors in the scientific worldview it would not work.
"You are also assuming the laws do not change between one experiment and another."
No, that again is an observable. We just ask: Do we better model reality (does the ensemble make better predictions?) with the postulate that X does not change between experiments, or do we need to allow for X to vary in order for our overall model to work?
"... you are assuming the reliability of that process of reasoning and deduction to start with. "
But, again, if scientific reasoning and deduction, and the logic and maths we use when doing science, were not real-world valid, then how come the computer I'm typing this on, and all the other technology that allows you to read it from thousands of miles away, does actually work? How come we understand the motion of moons and planets such that we can predict solar eclipses to an accuracy of seconds, and our predictions then come true?
If there were substantial flaws in the very basics of science, in the applicability of maths and logic, in our understanding of physical laws, or in our understanding of how reliable our observations are, then we could not achieve the superlative success that science, and the technology based on it, has achieved.
This iterative, anti-foundational "Quinean web" view of how science works is pretty much the mainstream view, nowadays, among scientists and philosophers of science. Science does not rest on axioms or assumptions, the ensemble is continually being compared to reality, and the success verifies all crucial parts of the ensemble.
Appreciate the thought-provoking interactions! Let's examine your basic argument. Please let me know if I misrepresent it.
A) If our basic scientific hypotheses were false, then engineering would not succeed.
B) Engineering does succeed.
C) Therefore our basic scientific hypotheses are true.
D) Since we can justify our hypotheses as above, they need not be taken as axioms.
The problem is, in going from A to D, you are using a process of reasoning. If you did not have the ability to reason correctly, then this process, and hence your conclusion (D), would be flawed, and you would simply never know. It is not possible to justify your ability to reason, without relying on the very ability to reason that you are trying to justify. To avoid such circular reasoning, axioms are inescapable.
I also don't agree that your view is the mainstream. I would challenge you to find even one standard mathematical text that denies the necessity of axioms. Every logician, mathematician or theoretical computer scientist knows that their discipline relies on axioms. The standard choice for the foundations of mathematics are the ZFC axioms of set theory, together with the axioms of first-order logic. As far as it relies on mathematics, the rest of science inherits this dependence too. There can certainly be legitimate debate about which axioms we need (as there has been within mathematics), but not about the need for axioms altogether.
Hi Daniel, yes, that fairly summarises the argument. And you're right, if we did not have the ability to reason correctly, then that argument fails. But, also, if we did not have the ability to reason correctly, then we could not make predictions of solar eclipses that come true, and we could not make iPhones that work.
To do either of those things requires a good understanding of physical laws, and the ability to make reliable observations, and the correct application of mathematics and logic, and it requires that the maths/logic/physics be good models of real-world behaviour, and -- above all -- it requires us to be able to use sound and reliable reasoning to put all of that together. If any of this were faulty, our technology would not work. Thus, the fact that it works verifies everything, including our ability to reason correctly.
So, provided you concede only that iPhones do work and that we can reliably predict eclipses, then my argument is sound, and our ability to reason is then yet another thing verified by that fact that science/technology works.
To refute the argument you'd have to claim that, no, iPhones don't actually work (we're mistaken about that) and we're not actually predicting eclipses (we're mistaken about that also), and then go for some sort of "brain in vat" scenario where we are just being kidded about absolutely everything.
On maths/logic. Yes, the formal logical systems that we create, such as maths, are founded on axioms. We do that because that formalisation makes them highly useful as tools.
But axioms are not necessary for all systems. For example, a natural language such as English (in contrast to a formal language such as maths) is not founded on axioms, it just comes from collective agreement, and it can change over time -- as seen by the change from the "old English" language of Beowulf to modern English. But it works sufficiently well, since we can figure out what language means by seeing what words people use in what contexts, and so we do manage to communicate.
A young child does not learn language by first starting from axioms, they learn from iteratively making sense of what they hear and see, then trying it out, and iteratively correcting mistakes and learning more. Science is more like that, rather than being reasoned from axioms.
Even with maths, while nowadays it is formalised into axioms (to make it precise and increase its usefulness), it didn't start like that. Maths would have started out from goat herders counting their flock. They would have developed counting numbers from seeing what works in the real world. They wouldn't have started from Peano's axioms and thought "hey, using this we could make a system to count goats", rather they started with a way of counting goats, and then later that got distilled into axioms.
And also, when you teach maths to young kids, you don't start with Peano or ZFC, you start with one brick plus another brick gives two bricks. They only learn ZFC is they go on to do a maths degree!
Anyhow, the view that science is not "foundational" and built on axioms, but is anti-foundational, being an iterative process where we continually verify and validate by comparing to the world, was popularised by Quine (often called the "Quinean web" view of science) and is widely accepted today among philosophers of science.
Coel, I think we are at an impasse! I will make my closing comments. Feel free to make yours too, after which I think we must agree to disagree.
Your argument simply establishes that if we can reason correctly, then we can reason correctly. This is perfectly true, but hardly worth the effort. A statement of the form “if A, then A” has no information content. It does not prove, or even verify, that A is true.
Just because a shepherd or a child is ignorant of the axioms, or cannot articulate them, does not mean they are not relying on them. The axioms are not introducing anything new or magical. They simply acknowledge the (often unconscious) assumptions that we all make, and cannot prove. This includes the assumption that we are not in a “brain in vat” scenario, as you put it.
Thanks for your interest in our article, despite the disagreement!
"Your argument simply establishes that if we can reason correctly, then we can reason correctly."
No, my argument is rather: "If we can make iPhones that work, and if we can make predictions of eclipses that come true, then that shows that we can reason correctly".
I enjoyed this beautiful essay, although I admit to disagreeing or not understanding the latter half that began with the five axioms.
I will comment on the title, "The heavens declare the glory of God" - from Psalm 19:1.
Russel W. Porter, the designer of the Palomar 5-m telescope, also was involved in the Springfield Telescope Makers, which have a club house on a hill in Vermont where an annual gathering occurs of amateur astronomers.
The club house is inscribed with "The heavens declare the glory of God" - you can find plenty of photographs of it on the internet.
The (former and late) Director of McDonald Observatory, Harlin Smith, had a calligraphy version of it on his bulletin board at UT Austin - many slips of paper with that on them exist in his lab notebooks stored in his collection at the library there.
The NASA administrator used the same quote in his short speech minutes after the successful launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on Christmas day, 2021.
It is a shame that this article is Biased and the goal of this essay seems to be to enforce dogmas instead of opening dialogue, since I am intrigued by this duality between faith and science.
In my thinking, and maybe the article is also leaning this way, science and religion are 2 seperate things with different purposes.
1) Science is the logical discovery of the natural world around us. A method to breakdown reality in how it works, without the distortion of emotions, meaning and purpose. It is what it is.
I think it can answer most why questions, but it will not apply a human kind of meaning to it.
2) Religion is their to bring purpose and meaning. Or better, to show us an ideal to strive toward, how to act between each other, and what to run away from. It is and has been very useful to us. Guiding us. I think every human civilization has come to a form of religion, and that in itself is a sign of the usefulness of religion.
Even if God does not exist, we as humans seem to need religion/ we are religious. (Eg. Even a music festival is a religious manifestation)
For me, raised and baptized as a Christian, there does not yet seem to be a solution to bridge this gap in a harmonious way. A gap between a new powerful tool and the experience of meaning in life.
This essay, however, talks about Christianity instead of religion. Why compare a whole system to 1 specific variant of the other system. In a reversed essay it would be like comparing religion as a system only to the theory of general relativity instead. This is a bias and shows the purpose of enforcing the christian dogma.
It is a shame, since bridging the gap between these 2 systems (or finding out how to make religion relevant again for our need for meaning, in this new world shaped by recent scientific discoveries) is very much needed and essential to every human.
Especially as Christians you should strive to open dialogue. Discuss this on a higher aggregate level, and first make the case of religion besides science. Then you might be able to discuss this with scientific minded people, atheists and other religious people on order to find a good solution.
A fellow human.
Post script
I am inspired by the lectures and the person of Jordan Peterson. In my view he has made a great effort to respect religion, the argument that religions has been everywhere for a long time and therefore not stupid is his, and he tries to psychological understand it's role.
Although I appreciate the essay, I don’t agree with most of it. I don’t deny the truths that are embedded in religion, you know the biggest problem of it is dogma and superstition. However bad the education system might be there are people that rise above and create their own path but it’s not possible for the masses. Their failure is the failure of the system itself. In the same way superstition and dogma cannot be viewed to be a personal problem on its own. There are faults in the system itself that push people towards such things. Science here helps to find the reason why many things are the way they are or happen the way they happen. The progress we have made today for even you and me sitting in different corners of the world and being able to communicate is a scientific miracle, a miracle which was brought about by humans without the help of any gods. Also even if a god exists, god of which religion in particular? Science has its problem and religion has its own problems. None is better than the other but both are not compatible in any way. Science is humble, open for discussion but religion already has all the answers. It really begs the question that if religion has all the answers why are people still so miserable? When we can reach god through the medium of religion, when we know about concepts of hell and heaven and everything and we’ve still failed to find permanent cures to the most basic of diseases? Also the god you refer to, is he interventionist or not? That is the most important point you missed. If he is interventionist then well what’s the basis for god helping someone and not others? If he exists but is non-interventionist then why should we even care about him? Did he create us only so we worship him? Isn’t that narcissistic much? Anyways rather than labelling myself as an atheist or theist, I’d say I’m a seeker. I sway between both the concepts as and when I get introduced to more knowledge. The essay was well written and would like to read more such stuff.
Thanks yash, some great questions there. Most of your questions assume that all religions are fundamentally the same, and they should all be capable of connecting people with God. Now anyone who is actually religious would reject this. You would need to judge specific religions on their specific claims, and how well their specific doctrines explain the world you see in front of you. The Christian doctrines of i) creation, ii) the fall and iii) mankind provide the best explanations for the beauty, goodness, evil and pain around us I have ever heard. See Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain by C S Lewis for detailed answers to all the questions you asked. Christians also claim that God is so interventionist that he came down to earth, suffered, and died to take upon himself the judgement our evil so richly deserves. His priority is not the immediate removal of human suffering, but the eternal redemption of mankind, which involves some pain for a time.
This is a beautiful essay and it says that I have been thinking, only it articulates it much better than I could have done.
My only quibble is that where the essay says Christian, it would have been preferable to say Judeo-Christian since the referenced concepts were first in the Hebrew Bible.
I agree, a Jewish framework equally motivates the scientific method, and there have been many famous Jewish scientists.
How about the Quran?
By the way, I am an MIT alum and to say that I am furious about your treatment there would be a considerable understatement. I think that it was a fundamental betrayal of the things that make MIT what it was (hate to put it in the past tense). I happen to agree with you on DEI, but that is irrelevant. Even if I disagreed with you, it was a terrible thing.
A valiant effort at defending the view that science and religion are compatible, though I confess to not agreeing with any of it (no problem, a diversity of opinion is good!).
Just for starters, I've never understood the claim that science cannot deal with "why?" questions. Why did the elephant head towards the water hole? Because it was thirsty. I don't see anything unscientific or non-scientific about that.
And just for seconds, on the five axioms that "can't be proved" but have to "be assumed" and "taken on faith": Things like: "entire physical universe obeys certain laws and these laws do not change with time."
But the extent to which the universe show regularities and "obeys laws", and whether they change with time, these are all observables. Indeed, that's how we arrive at "laws", by observing the universe and seeing how it behaves. If something seems (as far as we can tell) to hold in all times and places then we call it a "law". Further, we can test these ideas by using them to (for example) predict solar eclipses and see if the predictions come true.
None of this is just assumed and taken on faith, it's based on observations and regularly tested. It's a product of science, not an untestable assumption. Science can test any and all of its component ideas simply by asking "so how would things be if that wasn't true?" and then seeing which fits the observations better.
And, thirdly, yes, there is a reason to suppose that our thoughts about the world have some resemblance to the "truth", and that is that we need only suppose that, in evolving our brains, natural selection will have tended to favour true ideas over untrue ones. Which is indeed true.
The entire article supposes a "foundational" view of science, that it must rest on un-questionnable assumptions. This is a faulty view, the truer picture being the "Neurath's raft" or "Quinean web" view, where science is continually testing all parts of its world view.
Coel, if you are trying to arrive at laws of nature, you are assuming that laws of nature actually exist. If you are using your observations to arrive at those laws, then you are assuming the reliability of your observations. You are also assuming the laws do not change between one experiment and another. If you are using a process of reasoning and deduction to arrive at a theory of natural selection, then you are assuming the reliability of that process of reasoning and deduction to start with.
Hi Daniel, your comment presumes a "foundational" view of science (and indeed of epistemology), such that the edifice of science is built on assumptions and axioms which can't be questioned (in the same way that a building's foundations can support the roof but the roof cannot support the foundations).
This is (in my opinion) a wrong view of science. Rather, science is iterative. We can go back and examine the assumptions. Instead of the roof/foundations analogy, we have Neurath's raft analogy: the collection of ideas, the "raft", is afloat, but we can examine and replace any plank by standing on the other planks. Any idea or "axiom" of science can be examined, and replaced by a better idea, we just can't do that for all of them at once.
The whole ensemble is then verified by seeing whether it works. Do predictions of solar eclipses come true? Does technology that is based on science (such as iPhones) work? If so, this validates the ensemble, including the "axioms".
So: "... you are assuming that laws of nature actually exist". No, we are just observing nature and trying to understand it. We *observe* that there are regularities, so for example we observe the cycle of day and night. We describe how things are. If a description seems to hold everywhere and always, we call it a "law".
So some things change with time (e.g. temperature and atmospheric pressure), but we find, empirically, that if we take the product of velocity and mass, then that seems to always add up to the same. So we postulate a "law" of "conservation of momentum".
"If you are using your observations to arrive at those laws, then you are assuming the reliability of your observations."
But we're continually testing the ensemble. Do iPhones work, can we design computer chips that work, can we predict eclipses? If there were fundamental errors in the scientific worldview it would not work.
"You are also assuming the laws do not change between one experiment and another."
No, that again is an observable. We just ask: Do we better model reality (does the ensemble make better predictions?) with the postulate that X does not change between experiments, or do we need to allow for X to vary in order for our overall model to work?
"... you are assuming the reliability of that process of reasoning and deduction to start with. "
But, again, if scientific reasoning and deduction, and the logic and maths we use when doing science, were not real-world valid, then how come the computer I'm typing this on, and all the other technology that allows you to read it from thousands of miles away, does actually work? How come we understand the motion of moons and planets such that we can predict solar eclipses to an accuracy of seconds, and our predictions then come true?
If there were substantial flaws in the very basics of science, in the applicability of maths and logic, in our understanding of physical laws, or in our understanding of how reliable our observations are, then we could not achieve the superlative success that science, and the technology based on it, has achieved.
This iterative, anti-foundational "Quinean web" view of how science works is pretty much the mainstream view, nowadays, among scientists and philosophers of science. Science does not rest on axioms or assumptions, the ensemble is continually being compared to reality, and the success verifies all crucial parts of the ensemble.
Hi Coel,
Appreciate the thought-provoking interactions! Let's examine your basic argument. Please let me know if I misrepresent it.
A) If our basic scientific hypotheses were false, then engineering would not succeed.
B) Engineering does succeed.
C) Therefore our basic scientific hypotheses are true.
D) Since we can justify our hypotheses as above, they need not be taken as axioms.
The problem is, in going from A to D, you are using a process of reasoning. If you did not have the ability to reason correctly, then this process, and hence your conclusion (D), would be flawed, and you would simply never know. It is not possible to justify your ability to reason, without relying on the very ability to reason that you are trying to justify. To avoid such circular reasoning, axioms are inescapable.
I also don't agree that your view is the mainstream. I would challenge you to find even one standard mathematical text that denies the necessity of axioms. Every logician, mathematician or theoretical computer scientist knows that their discipline relies on axioms. The standard choice for the foundations of mathematics are the ZFC axioms of set theory, together with the axioms of first-order logic. As far as it relies on mathematics, the rest of science inherits this dependence too. There can certainly be legitimate debate about which axioms we need (as there has been within mathematics), but not about the need for axioms altogether.
Hi Daniel, yes, that fairly summarises the argument. And you're right, if we did not have the ability to reason correctly, then that argument fails. But, also, if we did not have the ability to reason correctly, then we could not make predictions of solar eclipses that come true, and we could not make iPhones that work.
To do either of those things requires a good understanding of physical laws, and the ability to make reliable observations, and the correct application of mathematics and logic, and it requires that the maths/logic/physics be good models of real-world behaviour, and -- above all -- it requires us to be able to use sound and reliable reasoning to put all of that together. If any of this were faulty, our technology would not work. Thus, the fact that it works verifies everything, including our ability to reason correctly.
So, provided you concede only that iPhones do work and that we can reliably predict eclipses, then my argument is sound, and our ability to reason is then yet another thing verified by that fact that science/technology works.
To refute the argument you'd have to claim that, no, iPhones don't actually work (we're mistaken about that) and we're not actually predicting eclipses (we're mistaken about that also), and then go for some sort of "brain in vat" scenario where we are just being kidded about absolutely everything.
On maths/logic. Yes, the formal logical systems that we create, such as maths, are founded on axioms. We do that because that formalisation makes them highly useful as tools.
But axioms are not necessary for all systems. For example, a natural language such as English (in contrast to a formal language such as maths) is not founded on axioms, it just comes from collective agreement, and it can change over time -- as seen by the change from the "old English" language of Beowulf to modern English. But it works sufficiently well, since we can figure out what language means by seeing what words people use in what contexts, and so we do manage to communicate.
A young child does not learn language by first starting from axioms, they learn from iteratively making sense of what they hear and see, then trying it out, and iteratively correcting mistakes and learning more. Science is more like that, rather than being reasoned from axioms.
Even with maths, while nowadays it is formalised into axioms (to make it precise and increase its usefulness), it didn't start like that. Maths would have started out from goat herders counting their flock. They would have developed counting numbers from seeing what works in the real world. They wouldn't have started from Peano's axioms and thought "hey, using this we could make a system to count goats", rather they started with a way of counting goats, and then later that got distilled into axioms.
And also, when you teach maths to young kids, you don't start with Peano or ZFC, you start with one brick plus another brick gives two bricks. They only learn ZFC is they go on to do a maths degree!
Anyhow, the view that science is not "foundational" and built on axioms, but is anti-foundational, being an iterative process where we continually verify and validate by comparing to the world, was popularised by Quine (often called the "Quinean web" view of science) and is widely accepted today among philosophers of science.
Coel, I think we are at an impasse! I will make my closing comments. Feel free to make yours too, after which I think we must agree to disagree.
Your argument simply establishes that if we can reason correctly, then we can reason correctly. This is perfectly true, but hardly worth the effort. A statement of the form “if A, then A” has no information content. It does not prove, or even verify, that A is true.
Just because a shepherd or a child is ignorant of the axioms, or cannot articulate them, does not mean they are not relying on them. The axioms are not introducing anything new or magical. They simply acknowledge the (often unconscious) assumptions that we all make, and cannot prove. This includes the assumption that we are not in a “brain in vat” scenario, as you put it.
Thanks for your interest in our article, despite the disagreement!
Hi Daniel, briefly:
"Your argument simply establishes that if we can reason correctly, then we can reason correctly."
No, my argument is rather: "If we can make iPhones that work, and if we can make predictions of eclipses that come true, then that shows that we can reason correctly".
I enjoyed this beautiful essay, although I admit to disagreeing or not understanding the latter half that began with the five axioms.
I will comment on the title, "The heavens declare the glory of God" - from Psalm 19:1.
Russel W. Porter, the designer of the Palomar 5-m telescope, also was involved in the Springfield Telescope Makers, which have a club house on a hill in Vermont where an annual gathering occurs of amateur astronomers.
https://stellafane.org/history/early/brief-history.html
The club house is inscribed with "The heavens declare the glory of God" - you can find plenty of photographs of it on the internet.
The (former and late) Director of McDonald Observatory, Harlin Smith, had a calligraphy version of it on his bulletin board at UT Austin - many slips of paper with that on them exist in his lab notebooks stored in his collection at the library there.
The NASA administrator used the same quote in his short speech minutes after the successful launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on Christmas day, 2021.
That simple list of assumptions on faith that a scientist must have is wonderfully concise and clear. Brilliant read.
It is a shame that this article is Biased and the goal of this essay seems to be to enforce dogmas instead of opening dialogue, since I am intrigued by this duality between faith and science.
In my thinking, and maybe the article is also leaning this way, science and religion are 2 seperate things with different purposes.
1) Science is the logical discovery of the natural world around us. A method to breakdown reality in how it works, without the distortion of emotions, meaning and purpose. It is what it is.
I think it can answer most why questions, but it will not apply a human kind of meaning to it.
2) Religion is their to bring purpose and meaning. Or better, to show us an ideal to strive toward, how to act between each other, and what to run away from. It is and has been very useful to us. Guiding us. I think every human civilization has come to a form of religion, and that in itself is a sign of the usefulness of religion.
Even if God does not exist, we as humans seem to need religion/ we are religious. (Eg. Even a music festival is a religious manifestation)
For me, raised and baptized as a Christian, there does not yet seem to be a solution to bridge this gap in a harmonious way. A gap between a new powerful tool and the experience of meaning in life.
This essay, however, talks about Christianity instead of religion. Why compare a whole system to 1 specific variant of the other system. In a reversed essay it would be like comparing religion as a system only to the theory of general relativity instead. This is a bias and shows the purpose of enforcing the christian dogma.
It is a shame, since bridging the gap between these 2 systems (or finding out how to make religion relevant again for our need for meaning, in this new world shaped by recent scientific discoveries) is very much needed and essential to every human.
Especially as Christians you should strive to open dialogue. Discuss this on a higher aggregate level, and first make the case of religion besides science. Then you might be able to discuss this with scientific minded people, atheists and other religious people on order to find a good solution.
A fellow human.
Post script
I am inspired by the lectures and the person of Jordan Peterson. In my view he has made a great effort to respect religion, the argument that religions has been everywhere for a long time and therefore not stupid is his, and he tries to psychological understand it's role.
Although I appreciate the essay, I don’t agree with most of it. I don’t deny the truths that are embedded in religion, you know the biggest problem of it is dogma and superstition. However bad the education system might be there are people that rise above and create their own path but it’s not possible for the masses. Their failure is the failure of the system itself. In the same way superstition and dogma cannot be viewed to be a personal problem on its own. There are faults in the system itself that push people towards such things. Science here helps to find the reason why many things are the way they are or happen the way they happen. The progress we have made today for even you and me sitting in different corners of the world and being able to communicate is a scientific miracle, a miracle which was brought about by humans without the help of any gods. Also even if a god exists, god of which religion in particular? Science has its problem and religion has its own problems. None is better than the other but both are not compatible in any way. Science is humble, open for discussion but religion already has all the answers. It really begs the question that if religion has all the answers why are people still so miserable? When we can reach god through the medium of religion, when we know about concepts of hell and heaven and everything and we’ve still failed to find permanent cures to the most basic of diseases? Also the god you refer to, is he interventionist or not? That is the most important point you missed. If he is interventionist then well what’s the basis for god helping someone and not others? If he exists but is non-interventionist then why should we even care about him? Did he create us only so we worship him? Isn’t that narcissistic much? Anyways rather than labelling myself as an atheist or theist, I’d say I’m a seeker. I sway between both the concepts as and when I get introduced to more knowledge. The essay was well written and would like to read more such stuff.
Thanks yash, some great questions there. Most of your questions assume that all religions are fundamentally the same, and they should all be capable of connecting people with God. Now anyone who is actually religious would reject this. You would need to judge specific religions on their specific claims, and how well their specific doctrines explain the world you see in front of you. The Christian doctrines of i) creation, ii) the fall and iii) mankind provide the best explanations for the beauty, goodness, evil and pain around us I have ever heard. See Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain by C S Lewis for detailed answers to all the questions you asked. Christians also claim that God is so interventionist that he came down to earth, suffered, and died to take upon himself the judgement our evil so richly deserves. His priority is not the immediate removal of human suffering, but the eternal redemption of mankind, which involves some pain for a time.
Excellent essay!
Good!