Abbas Raza at 3 Quarks Daily, just before kindly linking to my martini post, mentions a recent BBC documentary, Jonathan Miller’s Brief History of Disbelief. Not sure how I will ever get to see it, but it sounds great; very similar in spirit to the Moments in Atheism course I taught with Shadi Bartsch some time back. The synopses look about right:
Shadows of Doubt
BBC Two Monday 31 October 2005 7pm-8pm
Jonathan Miller visits the absent Twin Towers to consider the religious implications of 9/11 and meets Arthur Miller and the philosopher Colin McGinn. He searches for evidence of the first ‘unbelievers’ in Ancient Greece and examines some of the modern theories around why people have always tended to believe in mythology and magic.Noughts and Crosses
BBC Two Monday 7 November 7pm-8pm
With the domination of Christianity from 500 AD, Jonathan Miller wonders how disbelief began to re-emerge in the 15th and 16th centuries. He discovers that division within the Church played a more powerful role than the scientific discoveries of the period. He also visits Paris, the home of the 18th century atheist, Baron D’Holbach, and shows how politically dangerous it was to undermine the religious faith of the masses.The Final Hour
BBC Two Monday 14 November 7pm-8pm TBC
The history of disbelief continues with the ideas of self-taught philosopher Thomas Paine, the revolutionary studies of geology and the evolutionary theories of Darwin. Jonathan Miller looks at the Freudian view that religion is a ‘thought disorder’. He also examines his motivation behind making the series touching on the issues of death and the religious fanaticism of the 21st century.
I’m happy to see Baron D’Holbach in there, although a little surprised that Hume’s name wasn’t featured more prominently. And it’s too bad that he discounts the role of scientific discoveries; my own theory is that the mechanics of Galileo and Newton was actually much more influential in the development of atheism than people tend to believe.
Also interesting was this quote from the interview with the director, Richard Denton:
BBC Four: Were you surprised to find the first American presidents were so sceptical about religion?
RD: I was incredibly struck by their quotations – these guys wouldn’t even get considered as candidates if they said anything like that now. And I was depressed by that because it made me feel that we have not made a great deal of progress since the Age of Enlightenment. If anything, we’re going backwards at the moment.
Ain’t it the truth.
OK, gonna be real simple-minded here.
I, or someone like me, wants to be a scientist. Does he/she HAVE to be an atheist to be a scientist?
Or does he/she – even if not a fundamentalist but a mildly mainstream type – have to give up an existing religion to be a scientist?
Is the answer “No, but it helps if you do?”
> Does he/she HAVE to be an atheist to be a scientist?
Certainly not. Many of the greatest physicists were religious.
From Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Goedel.
I think the equation scientist=atheist is a US specialty and has to do with the extreme views of the religious right in this country.
iso42
Incorrect. Einstein thought of himself as ‘religious’, but NOT in the sense that he had any affiliation with any organised religion.
You certainly don’t have to be an atheist to be a scientist — there are numerous counterexamples. I’m not even sure if it helps, to be honest. But it does seem to happen a lot. Some musings recently from Matt McIrvin.
He wasn’t a president or candidate in his time, and he certainly could be neither today. But here is man who understood perfectly the extent to which a rational mind can hold religious belief, two hundred years before we say the same things now.
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html
I’ve always felt that religion is a subject that by definition we can say little about. Whenever I see some long exposition on theology, debating the particulars of scripture, or the implications of God for the minutiae of our everyday behaviors, I think back to Ben, the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and this masterpiece of clarity, brevity, and wit.
“God”, immanent and/or transcendent, is irrelevant to science. Science goes wherever its methodologies take it; if, in its travels, science stumbles into God – well, that should prove very interesting.. but in the meantime the world, not God, is the business of science.
At the moment belief in either the existence or non-existence of God is not illogical, but it is non-logical; it is, as Nietzshe said, “a matter of intuition”. Science, a logical business, is not competent to address the God issue. “Scientific” arguments for or against God are invariably specious; the notion that the existence of God is contingent upon the resolution of the evolution debate is especially misguided.
Something else Nietzsche said : “Science never explains anything, it merely describes. The world is as mysterious now as it ever was.”. Individual scientists, like any of the rest of us, may respond to the ongoing mystery in any way the totality of his or her self suggests. But please – there’s nothing scientific about either theism or atheism; both are based firmly on the rock of arbitrary suppositions.
Those three programs constitute “The History of Disbelief”? In which truncated and shrivelled world? It seems the historians still live with some ancient notion of geography.
Kea,
> Incorrect. Einstein thought of himself as ‘religious’, but NOT in the sense that he > had any affiliation with any organised religion.
What exactly is incorrect about my comment?
I wrote that Einstein was religious and he certainly was.
I did not write that he had any affiliation with any organised religion
(although it was very important to him in later years that he was Jewish).
By the way I completely agree with sisyphus: Religion is completely irrelevant for science and the same is true for atheistic or agnostic belief systems.
Richard Denton:
So you got me thinking about Religions and institutions
I use an example for consideration. 🙂 Whose creative institutional resistance, that institutionalizes? Layman scratches head?
I do agree that science doesn’t have much to say about religion directly, but it seems to me that it repeatedly contradicts it indirectly, i.e. by making predictions that disagree with religious dogmas and by attempting to provide explanations for phenomena that differ from the existing theistic ones.
It just seems to me to be too much of a coincidence that the discipline that attempts to explain the world logically, with no initial biases, harbours many more atheists than believers. Do people study science because they don’t want to believe or do they not believe as a result of following science?
….philosophy is the key…the “basis” of the math used to describe…..? It does take discussion…as we had seen Lee Smolin tried to do repeatly?
> the discipline that attempts to explain the world logically, with no initial biases
What discipline would this be ?
… the art of “discernment,” about prejudgements made without all the facts? 🙂
On the first day of History of Atheism, you mentioned that you and Prof. Bartsch hadn’t found any texts on the History. This guy mentions Western Atheism: A Short History by James Thrower and History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell by David Berman. They sound interesting. Maybe I’ll ask for those for Christmas.
On the first day of Moments in Atheism, you mentioned that you and Prof. Bartsch hadn’t found any texts on the History of Atheism use as a basis for the class. This guy mentions Western Atheism: A Short History by James Thrower and History of Atheism in Britain: From Hobbes to Russell by David Berman. They sound interesting. Maybe I’ll ask for those for Christmas.
There is no reason we have to deal with scientific issues, if we don’t care to, but everyone has to deal with the spiritual issues of life. Sean despises the very concept of religious belief, but this is not important. What is important is why he takes this position. Is the motivation for this purely scientific? Only Sean knows, but scientific knowledge certainly does not preclude a vibrant faith and joy in the witness of the prophets, as many, many scientists can testify.
Sean’s faith in the big bang theory and his understanding of scientific cosmology stems from his view of reality, which he has attained through the application of logic, reason, and the power of his imagination that will have flashed into and out of existence in what amounts to a fraction of a femtosecond, if that, in the course of the universe.
However, he thinks that this snapshot is enough to enable him to take the position that no intellect exists that has a better and substantially longer-lasting view than his, or if it does, that it communicates that view through a religious tradition. He alone is responsible for that decision, but he would like to convince others that it is the only reasonable position one can take. In his view, faith in the witness of the prophets that God lives, that man is accountable to him, and that all men will be raised from the grave to stand before him in the flesh, to be judged according to their deeds and how they treated their fellow man, is completely unfounded, because such a witness cannot be tested logically.
But it can be tested spiritually. God has and will prove to many that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that his promises, as witnessed by the prophets, will not fade away in vain, but all shall be fulfilled to the letter. But who can receive it? Not the arrogant atheists who resist the words of God for their own reasons. Therefore, they know nothing of him and the operations of his hand are hidden from them that they do not understand his work, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. But they will understand, someday, because he has revealed to the prophets that, eventually, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Scientific knowledge is not gained by application of spiritual principles, neither is spiritual knowledge gained by scientific principles. However, one whose understanding is enlightened by spiritual knowledge has a very good perspective of the tentativeness of scientific knowledge and therefore tends to be more skeptical of man’s tendency to claim credit for scientific progress. Rather, he sees the progress of civilization and progress of science and technology as serving a higher purpose in the economy of God, and he realizes that just as the rain falls on the just and the unjust, and just as the storms fall on the just and the unjust, so too the light of truth falls on the just and the unjust, but there’s a great difference in the reaction of the just and the unjust to what they receive, and to what they attribute the fortune, or misfortune, that befalls them. The heart of the just is always filled with gratitude and thanksgiving, both for the justice and mercy of God, which is always acknowledged by them, but the unjust deny him and do not recognize his hand in all things. Yet, it’s not our place to judge our fellow man. The wheat and tares are to be permitted to grow together. Whether our words and deeds are justified or not before God remains to be seen in the day of judgment, when we will all be brought to stand before him, but one thing is clear, his judgment will be perfectly just and we will acknowledge that fact, whether to our everlasting shame, or to our everlasting joy.
The message of Christ is that he will be our advocate in that day and will plead for mercy before the Father on our behalf, but only upon conditions of our faith in his leadership, and willingness to repent and become his humble followers, meek and submissive, and willing to bear all things that he shall see fit to place upon us. Many great and noble souls have died firm in the faith that this message is the truth, and many have died in disbelief, their hearts hardened against acceptance of any such thing. However, none can say that it was scientific knowledge that made the difference, because scientific knowledge has nothing to do with it. It’s the possession, or lack, of spiritual knowledge that makes the difference, and that is determined by the desires of our hearts, more than the power of our intellects.
Doug
> he sees the progress of civilization and progress of science and technology as serving a higher purpose in the economy of God
Is the “economy of God” based on free markets and capitalism ?
Doug :
Your passage sounds interesting and even handed until :
Not the arrogant atheists who resist the words of God for their own reasons.
Then it went downhill into a rant. But, nonetheless, I am curious. From the country I come from, almost everybody believe in some religion (mostly islam, but buddhism and christianity not far behind), but I’ve rarely hear comments about “Scientists are arrogant” back home. Indeed, scientists are rather looked highly upon (e.g. when the congregation of my fiancee’s church found out that I am one, they were very happy and had a lot of both science and philosophical questions to ask me). However, here in the US, I find it rather the opposite : one can summarized it in the above sentence you wrote.
So my question to you is, assuming you are from the US, why do religious people like you have such a negative view of scientists in general?
You might find the following quote amusing:
Interesting post. I wish I could see the documentaries. Incidentally I posted a few days ago an article on the same subject (in french, for those who are interested, click on my name above). I also defend the idea that the progress of rational thinking, which were allowed by the progress of science played a prominent role in undermining the basis of religion.
Wolfgang: > the discipline that attempts to explain the world logically, with no initial biases
What discipline would this be ?
The discipline (or branch of knowledge) of science. Sorry for the ambiguity!
Doug: “who can receive it? Not the arrogant atheists who resist the words of God for their own reasons. Therefore, they know nothing of him and the operations of his hand are hidden from them that they do not understand his work”
This is an example of one of the many memes making up the Christian religion’s memeplex today. “Have faith and you will be rewarded spiritually”. This turns into the belief that you are being rewarded spiritually for having faith. The two feed off each other and help promote the rest of the memplex to which they cling (belief in God, spirituality etc).
Religion is full of these symbiotic ideas, ideas which would most likely die out on their own. Memetic evolution results in their grouping together into grand memeplexes, much in the way that a bunch of genes group together and house themselves in organisms.
My point is this: any infant religion that did not include such self-supporting measures would soon become extinct, and as a result the only religions we observe today are the ones that became extremely well equipped to answer any doubters’ questions and indeed guide people to believe in them so strongly as to want to convince everyone else of them too.
Could you say the same about Sean and science? Probably. But at least he could guide you through every step of his reasoning for his beliefs (while pointing to empirical evidence on the way) without resorting to any leaps of faith, something which no religion I am familiar with could do.
Pingback: math-et-physique
>> the discipline that attempts to explain the world logically, with no initial biases
> The discipline (or branch of knowledge) of science.
I am a bit slow today, because I thought there are all kind of initial biases necessary to even begin science.
Immanuel Kant wrote about this on his blog but I cannot find the url right now.
I hate to explain a joke but the thought that a historical figure like Immanuel Kant cannot have a blog is of course symptom of one of our initial biases. (We tend to organize everything in time.)
I also tried to trackback this post on my weblog unfortunately it keeps saying me that it’s ok but nothing appears !