Hey class! This is a paper I wrote for Ben Leubner's Early American Writing Class. I'm putting it on this blog because the themes in our class. mainly the world as myth and dream (mainly myth) have infected my mind and completely changed the way I look at everything. This paper is in comparison of Scientists and philosophers comparison of religion to myth and my own comparison of their logic to myth. Enjoy!
WE ARE NOT HORSES
The Religious Debate: Past and Present
“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires—desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. –Bertrand Russell.
The root words of Mythology are Mythos and Logos; Logos meaning logic, or truth, and Mythos being stories. With the enlightened understanding that the culmination of a man’s knowledge in use is his logic, and the fact that logic itself is an illusion, we will be taking a look at the ideas of men from our past that have formed today’s leading Theologians and Scientist in the ongoing religious discussion, as well as our own perception of reality.
“It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church sprung out of the tail of heathen mythology,” beings Thomas Paine in his heavily reserved endeavor to espouse the Pagan Origins in The Roman Catholic Church . Dated, 1794, in his next words Paine proclaims that God’s only begotten Son is a perjury of the then present heathen mythology (Krimnick, 177). He states this without taking into consideration the prophecies from the Old Testament of the Bible. Whether or not he does this out of ignorance, that he believes the origins/handling source unreputable, or that he thinks that these prophecies are being addressed is unknown. My belief, and my reasoning, suggest though heathen mythology by definition is everything except Jeaudism, Christianity, and Islam, that dues to his link between myth and Christianity, he believed the Old Testament prophecies to be accounted for in and as a heathen mythology.
Paine continues on with his degradation of Christian Lore by comparing the Trinity as “no other that a reduction of the former plurality,” adding smugly, “Which is about twenty or thirty thousand [gods]” (Kramnick, 177). He compares The Virgin Mary to a replacement of Diana of Ephesus, and “[t]he deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints,” as well as providing a connection between the values and morals held by mythological gods switching onto the saints. Surmising these points Paine says, “The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud” (Kramnick,178).
Stephen Weinberg, a present day physicist and devout believer in a moralistic order free of “superstitions”, seems a direct descendant of Paine’s reasoning and philosophy (Frankenberry, 317). Weinberg expounds on Paine’s views of “Christian Theory” as a myth by maintaining that religion and mythology are, and should thus be viewed unanimously with, and as one another. Weinberg believes “[t]he Scholar of religion does not need to believe in God, but she does need to believe that religious folk believe in Superhuman beings (frankenberry, 319).Weinberg continues on with his bout proclaiming “[h]ow else can we identify anything as specifically religious, unless in connection with beliefs having to do with superhuman gods, goddesses, ancestors, ghosts, water spirits, and others powers. These beliefs may be judged false, but their truth value is irrelevant in identifying the proper object of the study of religion, and that involves the distinguishing characteristic belief in superhuman beings” (Frankenberry, 319).
According to Weinberg the “belief in superhuman beings”, being the equivalence of religion as myth, unveils the amphibious material and allows it to be viewed on its moral merits, “the proper object of the study”. Both Weinberg’s and Paine’s reasoning and philosophy depend upon the logical conclusion that religion is myth, and Weinberg avows that religious scholars must as well, “otherwise, the object of study becomes so expansive that it should be handed over to the desk of philosopher or the scientist” (frankenberry, 319).
Presently, while Paine’s argument that Christianity is ancient mythology revisioned by a Tyrannical Merchant, and Weinberg’s summative theory that religion need be studied only on a mythical level may seem logical, but with Bertrand Russell’s explanation of the origins of myths we understand that the simplicity of Paine’s evidence, which is only connections, is easily accepted even though he provides no present corollary between the Tyrannical Merchant and his need for a revisioned ancient mythology. In fact, Paine’s assumption proclaims that because of the ancient mythology there exists a Tyrannical Merchant, yet he does not provide any reasonable connections here.
This theory of Weinberg’s is also flawed by his faith in a “Theory of Everything” that comes from his unfailing faith in Physics. His faith is in physics as an absolute truth flaws his logic in vouching that “miracles” are not possible by humans, and thus Christians must believe in superhumans. The lack of theological study is evident: as well as the understanding for the possibility of a human being used as a vessel of power is not prevalent, nor possible in Weinberg’s logic. We will be taking a look at the fallibility of this thinking in the next section, Christians. To do this we need to look at the illusive crutch in the scientific theory that has been so well solidified since Galileo’s time.
The Christians
“I do not find that a Trinitarian and incarnational theology needs to be abandoned in favor of a tuned-down theology of a Cosmic Mind and an Inspired Teacher, alleged to be more accessible to the modern mind (Frankenberry, 340). John Polkinghorne stands for what he means, and has the background to supply his reasoning. Once a leading scientist in Quantum Physics, Polkinghorne left his post to become a Theology Scholar. Polkinghorne, as a fresh theology scholar, argues “The question of design is a metaphysical question, a question that goes ‘beyond’ (meta) physics, and metaphysical questions must receive metaphysical answers, given for metaphysical reasons” (Frankenberry, 343).
In the upcoming remark from Stephen Weinberg we will be looking at a metaphysical remark that is explained away by a physics answer. Through correcting Weinberg’s analysis we will be able to see the flaw in science which does not allow it to answer the question of Design, and why it must be left to metaphysics.
“It would be evidence for a benevolent designer if life were better than could be expected on the other grounds. To judge this, we should keep in mind that a certain capacity for pleasure would readily have evolved through natural selection, as an incentive to animals who need to eat and breed in order to pass on their genes.” (Frankenberry, 329)
“Polkinghorne points out the error in Weinberg’s statements saying, “Although we are rightly impressed by the many things that science can account for satisfactorily, we should also recognize that this great success has been purchased by a degree of modesty of ambition. Science limits itself to considering only certain kinds of experience. Broadly speaking its concern is with the impersonal dimension of reality. Galileo had the brilliant idea, followed so strictly by successive generations of physicists, of confining attention to the primary quantities of matter and motion, and to set aside what he called secondary characteristics of human perception such as color. This neglect of what the philosophers call qualia (that is to say feelings such as seeing red or judging someone to be trustworthy) was an immensely successful technique of investigation” (Frankenberry, 344).
From Polkinghorne’s synopsis, as well as the understanding that Weinberg’s pleasure falls under qualia, we see that Darwin’s theory of natural selection does not provide an evolution for the capacity of pleasure because the scientific theory in which it is tested does not allow, and in fact the theory works because and not in spite of this ignorance. This little known, little questioned, understanding of science only becomes apparent once it is espoused to the modern man; and then still it must undergo extreme scrutiny before the overwhelming truth is understood; that since science doesn’t answer everything. This understanding allows for the shifting of Creation as a physics question to that of a metaphysical nature.
The question of Design, Polkinghorne believes, is one of scope (Frankenberry, 343). Our perceptions shape the question of Design so that it can no longer remain a physical question. Edwards believes that the nature of causality serves as a proof of God’s creation, and Polkinghorne asserts that by thinking about the nature of causality we will be able to better grip the theory of Design in a metaphysical scope.
In discussing the beginning of all things Edwards writes, “That God does, by his immediate power, uphold every created substance in being, will be manifest, if we consider, that their present existence is a dependent existence, and therefore is an effect, and must have some cause; and the cause must be one of the two: either the antecedent existence of the same substance, or else the power of the Creator” (Smith,239).
Edward continues his argument declaring that it cannot be antecedent existence because things would have to be present to cause an effect. He is saying that an effect can not be the beginning, and that a cause must already be present to in act an effect. IF all of the earth is dependent, is an effect that came out of a cause, than we cannot say the past is a cause for the present effect, especially when the past object is completely passive. Edwards further backs up his explanation saying, “no cause can produce effects in a time and place on which itself is not” (Smith, 240). Through Edwards explanation we can see the claws that science digs into its conception, time. Without time, or before it, scientific theory has no grounds or footing to provide a thorough explanation.
After this illumination Polkinghorne would ask, “In a Theory of Everything is the realm of the personal as important to take into account as that of the impersonal?” (Frankenberyy 341) Yes. It is. Though science separates the two, personal and impersonal, it restricts itself to the physical world. It does not exist on the same structural foundation of thought as that of religion and thus cannot be used as a key or tool for its destruction. That is, logically. But of course, modern man will continue with his new god, his new myth, that which conquers all; knowledge.
So what? Am I saying that knowledge is useless? Am I saying that we should do away with logic, with reasoning? Certainly not. I believe they have become very successful tools, but I do not believe that reasoning is an answer in and of itself. A confused Tomas Paine asks, “It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How then is it that those people pretend to reject reason? (Krimnick, 180)
As a man from the age of reason Thomas Paine believes that through reason, logic, (and from this knowledge) you can obtain absolute truth. Knowledge has become his God, his answer, and this is very common amongst today’s science culture. Just look at Stephen Weinberg. What Paine and Weinberg cannot grasp is the possibility of their perception, their scope, having any flaws in it. They cannot see, nor do they believe that there is any myth, any illusions in their reasoning. “Those people” he speaks of understand that man is flawed, that he cannot know everything for certain. Thus “those people” place their faith in the Man who says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 4:16).
For the ignorant that place all their faith in science, for those who believe religious lies fall at its feet, I ask, what myth do you believe? John Polkinghorne would tell you that you are “historically ignorant to suppose, as the modern myth does, that Darwin was opposed by solid ranks of obscurantist clergyman when “The Origin of Species” was published in 1859” (Frankenberry, 351).
Frankenberry, Nancy. The Faith of Scientists In Their Own Words. 1st. New Jersey: Princeton Univ Pr, 2008.Pages 317-65.
Smith, John. Edwards, Jonathan. “The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended (1758).” The Jonathan Edwards Reader. Yale Univ Pr, 2003. Pages 223-43.
Kramnick, Isaac. Paine, Thomas. "The Age of Reason." Enlightenment Reader. Portable ed. New York: Penguin Group, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment