USU SHAFT is looking for guest bloggers! We need you! 
Do you know something interesting about science? Do you have something thoughtful to say about religion? Do you want to share your expertise in sociology? Have you found or even conducted an interesting piece of research? Is there something that you’ve been wanting to get people thinking about? We’re looking for anyone interested in writing short, thought-provoking blog posts for the usu-shaft.com site. Interesting content might include thoughts, stories, or personal experiences that deal with the humanities, the natural sciences, or the social sciences. If you are interested in becoming a guest blogger, please leave a comment on this post.
Thanks for doing this Nick! I’m sure people grew tired of my posts.
I would be interested in getting people’s opinions about Dr. Andy Thomson’s recent presentation entitled ‘From the Heavens or From Nature: The Origins of Morality’ available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo. I think it represents the future of our understanding of morality. It is becoming clear that, whatever you believe the ultimate source to be, all of our experiences – including our sense of morality, spiritual experiences, visions, etc. – have a completely physical explanation. The more we learn about our brains the more we see that they perform all of the functions that were historically assigned to our ‘spirits’.
“It is becoming clear that, whatever you believe the ultimate source to be, all of our experiences – including our sense of morality, spiritual experiences, visions, etc. – have a completely physical explanation.”
Wow, that is news to me. In fact, such a claim is not a scientific claim, it is a metaphysical claim at best, and is more likely an ideological claim.
I have made this point so many times that I am growing tired of pointing out the obvious: Demonstrating that the brain is involved in thought (or language or love or whatever) in no way shows that the brain is ALL that is involved in thought, etc. In fact, the claim that there is no immaterial cause is not a scientific claim – since science can only study material causes. Scientists are good at science. They are not very good at avoiding logical fallacies.
I continue to stand with Aristotle: no soul, no words. You cannot make sense of the intentionality of language without appealing to something beyond the material. If you do not know Aristotle’s argument, I would encourage you to read Ric Machuga’s book “In Defense of the Soul, Why Aristotle Still Matters”. It includes a chapter on “why Aristotelians are not afraid of Darwin”.
Before you get too carried away with what modern science has demonstrated: Aristotle knew, over 2000 years ago, that the brain was involved in thought. Aquinas knew this. This is not news. Sure, now we can see it now quite clearly thanks to fancy neuro-scans, but this is not news. Aquinas actually argues FOR the claim that your brain is at work in all of these things! But to demonstrate that the brain is at work is quite different than showing that it is ONLY the brain at work.
To generalize your claim, is it ” becoming increasingly clear” that we can have a “completely physical explanation” for everything? Dawkins himself, in his latest book and recent talks, has pointed out four things that Dawkins still calls “complete mysteries”. They are: the origin of life, the origin of sex, the origin of consciousness, and the rise of morality. In short, we don’t have a materialist explanation for ANY of the BIG questions!! So, Steve, I would encourage you to slow down a bit. Very little has been settled.
I look forward to watching the video link.
Sure, just because something can be explained scientifically does not automatically exclude god. But, having spent a good portion of my life trying unsuccessfully to experience god on any level, I find great value in the sciences, including the social sciences. And, frankly, I find seeking god to be ineffectual. That being said, however, my perception is that we make our decisions with our gut. We may be good at explaining our decisions and our beliefs with logic, but I think for the most part we let our emotions determine our beliefs. I’ve heard very convincing arguments for various forms of theism as well as for atheism. But I have a feeling that gods and angels are not a part of reality. I also make a conscious effort to always be open to the fact that I may be wrong.
I agree with you on this: I have never met someone who became a theist simply because of an argument for the existence of God. After all, who becomes Christian because of the ontological argument?
My view on the value of arguments for the existence of God: they help lead a horse to water. Now I know that the saying continues that ‘you can’t make it drink’. But eventually the horse will get thirsty, and it will be good for it to be near water. This is, in a nutshell, my own conversion story (I was raised atheist and was a militant atheist for the better part of 10 years of my adult life before converting).
What you say is probably right – what we are all left with is this delicate dance between reason and “gut”. Mixed in with a proper dose of humility it seems like a good approach.
I think much of what we believe is determined “in advance” by our basic comportment toward the world. Is our comportment reductionistic (“technological” in the Heideggerian sense) or not? Are we optimists or not? Are we skeptical or trusting? Do we think life is good or not?
This is why, for Heidegger, the question is not so much what in particular we think about, but is rather what does it mean to think in the first place (what is thinking? how should we think? what does it mean to be thinking?).
Comportment probably has a lot to do with it. If I were to generalize, I would say that most atheists are optimists and do think life is good. But they are also reductionists (i.e. they put too much stock in Occam’s razor) and they are definitely skeptics.
There’s an old Douglas Adams parable that I think of every time you mention this: “Demonstrating that the brain is involved in thought (or language or love or whatever) in no way shows that the brain is ALL that is involved in thought, etc.”
The parable goes:
‘A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained about high-frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, transmitters and receivers, amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. “But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?”‘
Of course, we don’t yet have engineers (neurologists, cognitive scientists, etc.) that can explain the brain at the same level of detail as a TV, but I strongly suspect that eventually we will.
I guess my overall question is, if the above statement is true, why aren’t these ones? Or, if they are logically true, are still kind of absurd?
“Demonstrating that electromagnetic radiation and phosphors are involved in television images in no way shows that these are ALL that are involved in television, etc.”
or
“Demonstrating that the stomach and intestines are involved in digestion in no way shows that these are ALL that are involved in digestion, etc.” Yet no one invokes the necessity of a digestive dualism.
I don’t have the time or talent to write an article for SHAFT right now, but I have an idea for a blog topic. If anybody wants to write an article but can’t think of what to write, I’d be interested in hearing about comparisons between religious groups and military organizations.
Christians talk about their members being Christian Soldiers in God’s Army, and I bet many other religions use army metaphors. In both cases the organization doesn’t want the “soldiers” questioning orders because the leaders may have some extra information, and their decision are what is best for the organization.
If anybody’s up to it, I’d like to hear these kinds of similarities pointed out and the discussions that follow.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Religious Diversity Edition! | Main Street Plaza
eLocalLawyers is interested in guest blogging for USU Shaft. We have an infographic that just came out highlighting crimes through history and their different punishments. We thought your readers would be interested in it, especially the punishment for witchcraft, or the Wiccan religion. You can see the infographic here:
http://www.elocallawyers.com/blog/crimes-and-punishments-through-time-infographic-1707
I look forward to hearing from you!